HOME  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 
THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


l ;  z^ 


HOME  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
OF  MODERN  KNOWLEDGE 

No.  1 

Editors : 

HERBERT    FISHER,  M.A.,  F.B.A. 
PROF.  GILBERT  MURRAY,  Lrrr.D., 

LL.D.,  F.B.A. 

PROF.  J.  ARTHUR   THOMSON,  M.A. 
PROF.  WILLIAM  T.  BREWSTER,  M.A. 


A  complete  classified  list  of  the  volumes  of  THE 
HOME  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY  already  published 
will  be  found  at  the  back  of  this  book. 


PARLIAMENT 

ITS  HISTORY,  CONSTITUTION 
AND  PRACTICE 


BY 


SIR   COURTENAY   ILBERT 

K.C.B.,  K.C.S.I. 

CLERK    OF   THE    HOUSE   OF   COMMONS 
AUTHOR  OF  "  LEGISLATIVE  METHODS  AND  FORMS,"  ETC. 


NEW  YORK 
HENRY   HOLT  AND   COMPANY 

LONDON 
WILLIAMS  AND   NORGATE 


COPYRIGHT,  1911, 


HENRY    HOLT   AND    COMPANY 


College 


511 
CONTENTS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

I    OBIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT 7 

II    CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  ...  32 

III  THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS 68 

IV  FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION 90 

V    SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE 120 

VI    ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE 139 

yil    THE  MEMBER  AND  His  CONSTITUENTS     ....  157 

VIII    RECORDS,  THE  PRESS,  AND  THE  PUBLIC   ....  177 

IX    THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS 196 

X    COMPARATIVE 220 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 249 

INDEX  255 


PAELIAMENT 

CHAPTER  I 

ORIGIN  AND   DEVELOPMENT 

THE  word  "parliament"  originally  meant 
a  talk.  In  its  Latin  form  it  is  applied  by 
monastic  statutes  of  the  thirteenth  century 
to  the  talk  held  by  monks  in  their  cloisters 
after  dinner,  talk  which  the  statutes  condemn 
as  unedifying.  A  little  later  on  the  term 
was  used  to  describe  solemn  conferences  such 
as  that  held  in  1245  between  Louis  IX  of 
France  and  Pope  Innocent  IV.  When  our 
Henry  III  summoned  a  council  or  conference 
of  great  men  to  discuss  grievances  he  was  said 
by  a  contemporary  chronicler  to  hold  a  parlia- 
ment. The  word  struck  root  in  England, 
and  was  soon  applied  regularly  to  the  national 
assemblies  which  were  summoned  from  time 
to  time  by  Henry's  great  successor,  Edward  I, 
and  which  took  something  like  definite  shape 
in  what  was  afterwards  called  the  "model 
parliament"  of  1295.  The  word,  as  we  have 
seen,  signified  at  first  the  talk  itself,  the 
conference  held,  not  the  persons  holding  it. 
7 


8  PARLIAMENT 

By  degrees  it  was  transferred  to  the  body  of 
persons  assembled  for  conference,  just  as  the 
word  "conference"  itself  has  a  double  mean- 
ing. When  Edward  I  was  holding  his  parlia- 
ments institutions  of  the  same  kind  were 
growing  up  in  France.  But  the  body  which 
in  France  bore  the  same  name  as  the  English 
parliament  had  a  different  history  and  a 
different  fate.  The  French  "parlement" 
became  a  judicial  institution,  though  it 
claimed  to  have  a  share  in  the  making  of 
laws. 

The  history  of  the  English  parliament  may 
be  roughly  divided  into  four  great  periods; 
the  period  of  the  mediaeval  parliaments,  of 
which  the  parliament  of  1295  became  the 
model  and  type;  the  period  of  the  Tudors 
and  Stuarts,  having  for  its  central  portion 
the  time  of  conflict  between  king  and  parlia- 
ment, between  prerogative  and  privilege; 
the  period  between  the  Revolution  of  1688 
and  the  Reform  Act  of  1832;  and  the  modern 
period  which  began  in  1832. 

Let  us  try  and  trace,  in  broad  outline,  the 
elements  out  of  which  the  parliament  of  1295 
grew  up,  and  the  main  stages  through  which 
its  development  passed. 

It  had  always  been  regarded  in  England 
as  a  principle  that  in  grave  and  important 
matters,  such  as  the  making  of  laws,  the 
king  ought  not  to  act  without  counsel  and 
consent.  The  counsel  and  consent  which  the 
Saxon  kings  sought  was  that  of  their  wise 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT         9 

men,  and  the  "Witenagemot"  of  English 
constitutional  history  was  a  meeting  of  these 
wise  men.  It  seems,  says  Maitland,  to  have 
been  a  very  unstable  and  indefinite  body. 
It  was  an  assembly  of  the  great  folk.  When 
there  was  a  strong  king  it  was  much  in  his 
power  to  say  how  the  assembly  should  be 
constituted  and  whom  he  would  summon. 
When  the  king  was  weak  the  assembly  was 
apt  to  be  anarchical.  The  Saxon  witenage- 
mot  was  not  numerous.  Small  men,  especially 
if  they  lived  at  a  distance,  could  not  come. 
Great  men  often  would  not  come.  The  insti- 
tution was  not  much  of  a  safeguard  against 
oppression.  Still  it  was  an  important  fact 
that,  on  the  eve  of  the  Norman  conquest,  no 
English  king  had  taken  on  himself  to  legislate 
or  tax  without  the  counsel  and  consent  of  a 
national  assembly,  an  assembly  of  the  wise,, 
that  is  of  the  great. 

The  Norman  conquest  made  a  great  break  j 
in  English  institutions,  but  not  so  great  as 
was  at  one  time  supposed.  In  the  first  place 
William  the  Conqueror  had  to  build  with 
English  materials,  and  on  English  founda- 
tions. In  the  next  place  English  institutions 
had,  during  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Confes- 
sor, been  rapidly  approximating  to  the  con- 
tinental type.  What  William  did  was  to 
emphasize,  rather  than  to  introduce,  certain 
principles  of  what  was  afterwards  vaguely 
described  as  the  "feudal  system,"  and  to 
adapt  them  to  his  own  purposes.  He  insisted 


10  PARLIAMENT 

on  the  principle  that  all  land  in  the  country 
was  ultimately  held  of  the  king.    There  were 
to  be  no  full  owners  of  land  under  him  only 
holders  or  tenants.    He  insisted  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  every  landholder  in  the  country 
owed   direct   allegiance   to   the   king.      The 
landholder  might  hold  his  land  under,  and 
owe  allegiance  to,  another  lord,  but  his  oath 
of  allegiance  to  that  lord  was  qualified  by  his 
allegiance  to  the  king.     And,  in  portioning 
out  the  English  soil  among  the  motley  band 
of  adventurers  who  had  followed  him  and 
whom  he  had  to  reward  for  their  share  in  his 
raid,  he  tried  to  break  the  strength  of  the 
greater  men,  by  scattering  their  estates  over 
different  parts  of  England,  and  by  mixing 
up  with  them  smaller  men,  who  held  their 
land,  not  under  any  intermediate  lord,  but 
directly  under  the  king.    He  did  not  wholly 
succeed,  as  he  and  those  after  him  found  to 
their  cost.     But  the  existence,  by  the  side 
of  the  greater  lords,  of  a  number  of  com- 
paratively small  landholders,  who  also  held 
their  land  directly  from  the  king,  had  an 
important   bearing   on   the   development  of 
parliament.     The  Norman  kings  were  des- 
pots, untrammelled  by  any  constitutional  re- 
strictions, and  controlled  only  by  the  resist- 
ance of  powerful  and  turbulent  subjects.    But 
there  were  the  traditions  of  better  things  past; 
there  were  the  charters,   often  broken  but 
always  there,  by  the  help  of  which  kings 
with  doubtful  titles  obtained  succession,  and 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       11 

in  which  they  promised  to  observe  those 
traditions;  and  there  was  a  feeling  that, 
apart  from  these  promises,  it  was  prudent  and 
politic  to  obtain  an  expression  of  counsel 
and  consent,  if  it  could  be  obtained.  "Thrice 
a  year,"  says  the  Saxon  chronicle  of  the 
Conqueror,  "  king  William  wore  his  crown 
every  year  he  was  in  England;  at  Easter  he 
wore  it  at  Winchester,  at  Pentecost  at  West- 
minster, and  at  Christmas  at  Gloucester;  and 
at  these  times  all  the  men  of  England  were 
with  him — archbishops,  bishops  and  abbots, 
earls,  thegns  and  knights."  "All  the  men 
of  England."  What  did  this  mean?  To  the 
Saxon  chronicler  it  probably  meant  the  men 
who  counted,  the  wise  and  great,  the  men 
who  might  have  been  expected  to  attend  a 
witenagemot.  But  William's  court  was  a 
feudal  court,  and  from  the  Norman  point  of 
view  perhaps  it  was  an  assembly  of  the  king's 
tenants  in  chief.  These,  however,  were  num- 
erous, and  many  of  them  were  small  men,  so 
that  probably  only  a  select  few  were  sum- 
moned. Courts  or  great  councils  of  the  same 
kind  were  held  under  the  later  Norman  kings, 
but  we  know  little  about  their  composition 
or  functions.  All  that  can  be  said  with 
safety  is  that  the  few  legislative  acts  of  this 
period  were  done  with  the  counsel  and  consent 
of  the  great  men. 

What  we  have  to  watch  is  the  transforma- 
tion of  the  body  whose  counsel  and  consent 
is  required  from  a  merely  feudal  body,  a  body 


12  PARLIAMENT 

of  great  vassals  or  tenants  in  chief,  to  a  body 
more  representative  of  the  nation  at  large. 

Henry  II  did  something  when  he  imposed 
a  tax  on  movables,  the  Saladin  tithe  of  1188, 
and  had  it  assessed  by  a  jury  of  neighbours, 
a  jury  in  some  sense  representative  of  the 
taxpayer  and  of  the  parish  in  which  he  lived, 
and  thus  brought  into  connection  the  ideas 
of  taxation  and  representation. 

The  Great  Charter  of  1215  declared  that 
exceptional  feudal  aids  were  not  to  be  levied 
without  the  common  counsel  of  the  realm. 
But  this  counsel  was  to  be  given  by  an  as- 
sembly consisting  of  prelates  and  great  lords 
summoned  singly,  and  of  tenants  in  chief 
summoned  collectively  through  the  sheriffs. 
So  it  was  still  a  feudal  assembly. 

A  further  step  was  taken  when,  in  1254, 
at  a  time  when  Henry  III  was  in  great  need 
of  money,  each  sheriff  was  required  to  send 
four  knights  from  his  county  to  consider  what 
aid  they  would  give  the  king  in  his  great 
necessity.  For  these  knights  represented, 
not  the  tenants  in  chief,  but  all  the  free  men 
of  their  county.  They  were  representatives 
of  counties. 

Eleven  years  later,  in  1265,  Simon  de 
Montfort  summoned  to  his  famous  parliament 
representatives,  not  merely  of  counties,  but 
also  of  cities  and  boroughs. 

Edward  I  held  several  great  assemblies, 
which  were  usually  called  parliaments,  and 
which  made  some  great  laws,  but  some  of 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       13 

these  laws  were  made  without  the  assent  of 
representatives  of  the  commons. 

The  model  parliament,  which  settled  the 
general  type  for  all  future  times,  was  held  in 
1295.  To  this  parliament  King  Edward  sum- 
moned separately  the  two  archbishops,  all 
the  bishops,  the  greater  abbots,  seven  earls 
and  forty-one  barons.  The  archbishops  and 
bishops  were  directed  to  bring  the  heads  of 
then-  cathedral  chapters,  their  archdeacons, 
one  proctor  for  the  clergy  of  each  cathedral, 
and  two  proctors  for  the  clergy  of  each  diocese. 
Every  sheriff  was  directed  to  cause  two  knights 
of  each  shire,  two  citizens  of  each  city,  and 
two  burgesses  of  each  borough,  to  be  elected. 

Two  points  should  be  specially  noticed 
about  the  constitution  of  this  parliament. 

In  the  first  place  it  was  not  a  feudal  court, 
nor  a  meeting  of  the  king's  tenants,  but  a 
national  assembly.  Edward  had  suffered 
much  in  his  father's  time  from  the  great 
barons,  who  had  made  him  prisoner  at  the 
battle  of  Lewes,  and  he  wished  to  draw 
counsel  and  help  from  other  quarters.  His 
parliament  was  intended  to  represent  the 
three  great  estates  or  classes  into  which 
mediaeval  society  might  be  roughly  divided, 
the  clergy,  the  barons,  and  the  commons; 
those  who  pray,  those  who  fight  and  those 
who  work,  as  Maitland  puts  it.  The  same 
idea  underlay  the  States  General  which  were 
coming  into  existence  about  the  same  time  in 
France,  and  which  met,  at  intervals,  during 


14  PARLIAMENT 

many  centuries.  After  an  interval  of  175 
years  the  three  estates  of  France  were  for  the 
last  time  summoned  to  meet  as  separate 
bodies  in  1789,  but  were  at  once  merged  in  the 
national  assembly  which  began  the  French 
Revolution. 

The  idea  of  the  three  estates  was  never 
realized  in  England.  The  clause  by  which 
archbishops  and  bishops  were  directed  to 
bring  with  them  representatives  of  their 
clergy,  a  clause  still  remaining  in  the  writ 
by  which  they  are  summoned  at  the  present 
day,  was  persistently  ignored.  The  clergy 
as  a  body  preferred  to  stand  aloof,  to  meet 
in  their  own  clerical  assemblies  or  convoca- 
tions, and  to  settle  there  what  contribution 
they  would  make  to  the  king's  needs.  The 
archbishops,  bishops  and  greater  abbots 
attended,  as  they  had  attended  the  great 
councils  of  previous  kings.  But  then  they 
were  not  merely  clerics,  they  were  great 
feudal  lords  and  great  holders  of  land. 

The  knights  of  the  shires  were  drawn  from 
the  same  class  as  the  greater  barons.  The 
word  "  baron "  originally  meant  simply 
"  man,"  and  for  some  time  there  was  much 
uncertainty  as  to  who  should  be  treated  as 
a  man  so  great  as  to  be  entitled  to  a  separate 
summons,  and  who  should  be  left  to  be 
represented,  like  other  freemen  of  the  lesser 
sort,  by  the  knights  of  the  shires.  The  title 
of  baron  came  eventually  to  be  confined  to  the 
greater  men  who  were  summoned  separately. 


The  knights  who  represented  the  shires, 
when  they  came  to  Westminster,  mingled 
themselves  with  the  representatives  of  the 
cities  and  boroughs.  In  the  time  of  Edward 
III  there  was  a  risk  of  the  merchants  being 
consulted  as  a  separate  class  for  the  purpose 
of  taxation,  but  this  risk  was  avoided.  If 
things  had  fallen  out  somewhat  differently 
the  English  parliament  might  have  sat  as 
three  separate  houses,  as  in  France,  or  might 
have  been  grouped  in  a  single  house,  as  in 
Scotland,  or  might  have  formed  four  houses, 
as  in  Sweden.  But  the  inferior  clergy  ab- 
stained from  attendance,  the  greater  clergy, 
the  spiritual  lords,  sat  with  the  lay  or  temporal 
lords,  and  the  knights  of  the  shires  threw  in 
their  lot  with  the  citizens  and  burgesses. 
Thus  parliament  became  an  assembly,  not 
of  three  estates,  but  of  two  houses,  the  house 
consisting  of  the  lords  spiritual  and  temporal, 
and  the  house  representing  the  commons, 
the  house  of  lords  and  the  house  of  commons. 
The  other  point  to  be  noticed  is  that  par- 
liament was  an  expansion,  for  temporary 
purposes,  of  the  king's  continuous  council. 
The  Norman  and  Plantagenet  kings,  like 
other  kings,  needed  continuous  assistance, 
both  for  domestic  and  ceremonial  purposes, 
and  for  the  business  of  government,  such  as 
the  administration  of  justice,  and  the  collec- 
tion and  expenditure  of  revenue.  The  courts 
or  councils  composed  of  the  men  on  whom 
the  king  most  relied  for  this  assistance  bore 


16  PARLIAMENT 

various  names,  varied  in  number,  and  exer- 
cised varying  functions.  As  the  work  of 
government  increased  and  specialized,  these 
nebulous  bodies  split  up  into  more  coherent 
parts,  with  more  definite  functions,  and  out 
of  them  grew  the  king's  courts  of  justice  and 
the  great  departments  of  the  central  govern- 
ment. When  the  king  held  his  great  assem- 
blies it  was  necessary  that  he  should  have 
about  him  the  men  on  whom  he  was  accus- 
tomed to  place  special  reliance  for  advice  and 
assistance.  Accordingly  there  were  sum- 
moned by  name  to  the  parliament  of  1295 
men  who  were  not  earls  or  barons,  but  were 
members  of  the  king's  council,  and  in  particu- 
lar the  king's  judges.  And  to  this  day  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  court  are  summoned 
to  parliament,  and  some  of  them  take  their 
seats  in  the  house  of  lords  when  the  king 
opens  parliament. 

The  fact  that  the  mediaeval  parliament  was 
an  expansion  of  the  king's  council  explains 
the  nature  of  the  business  which  it  had  to 
transact.  The  immediate  cause  of  summon- 
ing a  parliament  was  usually  want  of  money. 
The  king  had  incurred,  or  was  about  to  incur, 
expenses  which  he  could  not  meet  out  of  his 
ordinary  resources,  such  as  the  revenues  of 
his  domain  and  the  usual  feudal  dues.  He 
summoned  a  parliament  and,  through  his 
chancellor  or  some  other  minister,  explained 
what  he  wanted  and  why  he  wanted  it.  The 
king's  speech  might  touch  on  other  great 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       17 

matters,  about  which  he  might  need  advice 
or  approval,  but  money  was  the  gist.  On  the 
other  hand  the  king's  subjects  had  grievances 
for  which  they  desired  redress.  The  griev- 
ances would  be  of  different  kinds,  breach 
of  old  customs,  failure  to  observe  charters 
or  laws,  oppression  by  the  king's  officers  or 
by  great  men,  maladministration  of  justice, 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  settling  private 
disputes,  and  so  forth.  For  the  redress  of 
these  grievances  petitions  were  presented, 
petitions  which  in  their  multifarious  character 
were  not  unlike  the  statements  of  grievances 
presented  to  the  national  assembly,  on  the 
eve  of  the  French  Revolution.  The  petitions 
were  to  the  king  in  parliament  or  to  the  king 
in  his  council,  and  parliament  was  the  petition- 
ing body,  the  body  by  or  through  whom  the 
petitions  were  presented.  The  remedies  re- 
quired would  be  classified  in  modernl  anguage 
as  judicial,  legislative  or  administrative.  But 
in  the  thirteenth  century,  these  distinctions 
had  not  been  clearly  drawn.  A  statute 
made  by  Edward  I  in  his  parliament  of  1292, 
known  as  the  Statute  of  Waste,  and  based 
on  a  petition  presented  to  him  in  that  parlia- 
ment, supplies  a  good  illustration  of  the  way 
in  which  judicial,  legislative  and  administra- 
tive remedies  might  be  combined.  The  stat- 
ute begins  with  a  long  story  showing  how 
Gawin  Butler  brought  a  complaint  before  the 
king's  justices  about  waste  done  to  his  land, 
but  died  before  obtaining  judgment;  how  his 


18  PARLIAMENT 

brother  and  heir,  William,  who  was  under  age 
and  a  ward  of  the  king,  sought  to  continue 
the  proceedings;  and  how  the  justices  differed 
in  opinion  as  to  whether  he  was  entitled  to  do 
so.  Thereupon  the  king,  in  his  full  parliament 
by  his  common  council  or  by  general  consent 
(for  the  Latin  phrase  wavers  between  the  two 
meanings  of  "council"  and  "counsel")  or- 
dains that  all  heirs  may  have  an  action  by  writ 
of  waste  for  waste  done  in  the  time  of  their 
ancestors,  and  the  king  himself  commands  his 
justices  to  give  judgment  accordingly.  Here 
the  king  acts  partly  in  his  legislative  capacity, 
laying  down  a  general  rule,  partly  in  his 
judicial  capacity,  as  having  power  to  review 
and  control  the  proceedings  of  his  justices, 
and  partly  in  an  administrative  capacity  as 
guardian  of  an  infant  heir. 

At  the  beginning  of  each  parliament  the 
king,  or  his  great  council  on  his  behalf, 
appointed  persons  to  receive  and  to  try  these 
petitions,  that  is  to  say  to  sort  them  out,  to 
consider  what  remedy,  if  any,  each  petition 
required,  and  to  devise  an  appropriate  form 
of  remedy.  The  triers  or  auditors  of  petitions 
were  really  committees  of  the  king's  council. 
Until  near  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century 
receivers  and  triers  of  petitions  from  Eng- 
land, Scotland  and  Gascony,  respectively  (for 
Edward  I  ruled  in  Gascony  as  well  as  Eng- 
land) were  appointed  at  the  beginning  of  each 
parliament  by  an  entry  in  the  lords  journals. 
But  their  functions  had  ceased  for  many 
centuries.  „ 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       19 

The  sittings  of  an  early  Plantagenet  parlia- 
ment did  not  extend  over  many  days.  Trav- 
elling was  difficult,  dangerous  and  costly; 
members  could  not  afford  to  stay  long  away 
from  their  homes.  The  main  object  of  the 
meeting  was  usually  to  strike  a  bargain  be- 
tween the  king  and  his  subjects.  The  king 
wanted  a  grant  of  money,  and  it  was  made  a 
condition  of  the  grant  that  certain  grievances, 
about  which  petitions  had  been  presented, 
should  be  redressed.  When  an  agreement 
had  been  arrived  at  as  to  how  much  money 
should  be  granted  and  on  what  terms,  the 
commoners  and  most  of  the  lords  went  their 
ways,  leaving  the  king's  advisers,  the  mem- 
bers of  his  council,  to  devise  and  work  out, 
by  means  of  legislation  or  otherwise,  such 
remedies  as  might  be  considered  appropriate 
and  advisable. 

It  is  to  the  Plantagenet  period  that  we  owe 
the  most  picturesque  of  our  parliamentary 
ceremonials,  those  which  attend  the  opening 
of  Parliament  and  the  signification  of  the 
royal  assent  to  Acts.  And  we  ought  to  think 
of  the  Pantagenet  parliament  as  something 
like  an  oriental  durbar,  sucb  as  was  held 
by  the  late  Amir  of  Afghanistan,  with  the 
king  sitting  on  his  throne,  attended  by  his 
courtiers  and  great  chiefs,  hearing  the  com- 
plaints of  his  subjects  and  determining 
whether  and  how  they  should  be  met. 

Of  the  changes  in  the  composition  of  parlia- 
ment which  took  place  during  this  period 


20  PARLIAMENT 

something  will  be  said  later  on,  but  a  few 
words  must  be  said  here  about  the  changes 
in  its  powers  and  functions,  specially  with 
respect  to  the  two  main  branches  of  its  busi- 
ness, taxation  and  legislation. 

Before  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century 
parliament  had  established  two  principles  of 
taxation.  In  the  first  place  they  had  taken 
away  the  power  of  the  king  to  impose  direct 
taxes  without  their  consent,  and  had  re- 
stricted his  power  to  impose  indirect  taxes 
without  their  consent  to  such  taxes  as  might 
be  justified  under  the  customs  recognized  by 
the  Great  Charter.  In  the  second  place 
parliament  had  acquired  the  right  to  impose 
taxes,  direct  and  indirect,  of  all  kinds.  In  im- 
posing these  taxes  they  did  not  care  to  go 
beyond  the  immediate  needs  of  the  case. 
Hence  the  necessity  for  frequent  parliaments. 

According  to  the  theory  of  the  three  estates, 
each  estate  would  tax  itself  separately,  and 
this  theory  was  at  first  observed.  The  clergy 
granted  their  subsidies,  not  in  parliament 
but  in  convocation,  and  continued  to  do  so, 
in  theory  at  least,  until  after  the  Restoration 
of  1660.  But  long  before  this  time  they  had 
agreed  to  grant  or  submit  to  taxes  correspond- 
ing to  those  imposed  on  the  laity.  At  a 
much  earlier  date,  before  the  end  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  the  lords  and  commons, 
instead  of  making  separate  grants,  agreed  to 
join  in  a  common  grant.  And,  as  the  bulk 
of  the  burden  fell  upon  the  commons,  they 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       21 

adopted  a  formula  which  placed  the  commons 
in  the  foreground.  The  grant  was  made  by 
the  commons,  with  the  assent  of  the  lords 
spiritual  and  temporal.  This  formula  ap- 
peared in  1395,  and  became  the  rule.  In  1407, 
eight  years  after  Henry  IV  came  to  the 
throne,  he  assented  to  the  important  principle 
that  money  grants  were  to  be  initiated  by 
the  house  of  commons,  were  not  to  be  re- 
ported to  the  king  until  both  houses  were 
agreed,  and  were  to  be  reported  by  the 
Speaker  of  the  commons  house.  This  rule  is 
strictly  observed  at  the  present  day.  When 
a  money  bill,  such  as  the  finance  bill  for  the 
year  or  the  appropriation  bill,  has  been  passed 
by  the  house  of  commons  and  agreed  to  by 
the  house  of  lords  it  is,  unlike  all  other  bills, 
returned  to  the  house  of  commons.  On  the 
day  for  signifying  the  royal  assent  the  clerk 
of  the  house  of  commons  takes  it  up  to  the 
bar  of  the  house  of  lordsj  then  hands  it  to  the 
Speaker,  who  delivers  it  with  his  own  hand 
to  the  officer  charged  with  signifying  the 
king's  assent,  the  clerk  of  parliaments. 

Ever  since  the  reign  of  Henry  VII  the 
enacting  formula  of  Acts  of  Parliament  has 
run  thus — 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  king's  (or  queen's) 
most  excellent  majesty  by  and  with  the  ad- 
vice and  assent  of  the  lords  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, and  commons,  in  this  present  parlia- 
ment assembled,  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
same,  as  follows."  This  formula  grew  into 


22  PARLIAMENT 

shape  in  what  has  been  called  above  the  medi- 
aeval period  of  parliament.  At  the  beginning 
of  this  period  the  king  made  laws  with  the 
requisite  advice  and  assent.  One  important 
early  Act  was  expressed  to  be  made  at  the  in- 
stance of  the  great  men.  Later  on  the  concur- 
rence of  the  whole  parliament,  including  the 
commons,  became  essential.  But  the  com- 
mons usually  appear  at  first  in  a  subordinate 
position.  Throughout  the  fourteenth  century 
the  kind  of  form  most  usually  adopted  is  that 
a  statute  is  made  with  the  assent  of  the  earls, 
prelates  and  barons  and  at  the  request  of  the 
knights  of  the  shires  and  commons  in  parlia- 
ment assembled.  The  commons  appear  as 
petitioners  for  laws  rather  than  as  legislators. 
And  this  is  in  fact  what  they  were.  They  pre- 
sented their  petitions,  which  might  ask  for 
amendment  or  clearer  declaration  of  the  law. 
It  was  for  the  king,  with  the  aid  of  those  more 
intimately  in  his  counsels,  to  determine 
whether  legislation  was  required  and  if  so 
what  form  it  should  assume.  Throughout 
the  fourteenth  century  there  was  much  risk 
that,  even  if  the  making  of  a  law  were  granted, 
the  law,  when  made,  would  not  correspond  to 
the  petition  on  which  it  was  based.  The 
statute  was  not  drawn  up  until  after  the  par- 
liament was  dissolved,  its  form  was  settled 
by  the  king's  council,  and  there  were  many 
complaints  about  the  variance  between  peti- 
tions and  statutes.  At  last  in  1414,  soon 
after  the  accession  of  Henry  V,  the  king  con- 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       23 

ceded  the  point  for  which  the  commons  had 
repeatedly  pressed.  The  commons  prayed 
"that  there  never  be  no  law  made  and  en- 
grossed as  statute  and  law  neither  by  addi- 
tions nor  discriminations  by  no  manner  of 
term  or  terms  which  should  change  the  sen- 
tence and  the  intent  asked."  And  the  king 
in  reply  granted  that  from  henceforth  "noth- 
ing be  enacted  to  the  petition  of  the  com- 
mons contrary  to  their  asking,  whereby  they 
should  be  bound  without  their  assent." 
This  concession  led  to  an  important  change  in 
the  method  of  framing  statutes.  It  became 
the  practice  to  send  up  to  the  king,  not  a  pe- 
tition, but  a  bill  drawn  in  the  form  of  a  stat- 
ute, so  that  the  king  was  left  no  alternative 
beyond  assent  or  dissent.  Legislation  by 
bill  took  the  place  of  legislation  on  petition. 
This  practice  became  settled  about  the  end 
of  the  reign  of  Henry  VI. 

The  changes  in  practice  were  reflected  by 
changes  in  the  legislative  formula.  Statutes 
were  expressed  to  be  made  by  the  advice 
and  assent  of  the  lords  and  the  commons, 
thus  putting  the  two  houses  on  an  equal 
footing.  And  before  the  middle  of  the  fif- 
teenth century  a  significant  addition  was 
made  to  the  formula.  Statutes  were  ex- 
pressed to  be  made,  not  only  with  the  advice 
and  assent  of  the  lords  and  commons  in  parlia- 
ment, but  "by  the  authority  of  the  same." 
This  was  an  admission  that  the  statute  de- 
rived its  authority  from  the  whole  parlia- 


24  PARLIAMENT 

merit.  The  two  houses  had  become  not  merely 
an  advising,  consenting,  or  petitioning  body, 
but  a  legislative  authority. 

The  power  to  refuse  assent  to  legislation 
still  remained,  and  it  was  often  exercised 
until  a  much  later  date.  It  was  signified  in 
a  courteous  form — "The  king  will  consider." 

The  political  power  of  parliament  grew 
rapidly  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  cen- 
turies. In  1327  a  parliament  which  had  been 
summoned  in  the  name  of  Edward  II  re- 
solved, in  summary  fashion,  on  his  deposition 
and  forced  him  to  resign.  But  the  proceed- 
ings on  the  deposition  of  Richard  II  were  more 
formal.  Richard  was  forced  to  summon  a 
parliament,  and  then  to  execute  a  deed  of 
resignation.  The  parliament  assembled  in 
Westminster  Hall,  which  Richard  had  rebuilt, 
and  which  stood  then  much  as  it  stands  now. 
Parliament  accepted  his  resignation  and  went 
on,  by  further  resolutions,  to  declare  that  he 
was  deposed  and  to  resolve  that  Henry  of 
Lancaster  should  be  king  in  his  place.  A 
parliament  which  could  thus  make  and  un- 
make kings  was  a  formidable  body.  The  Lan- 
castrian kings,  it  has  been  said,  were  kings  by 
Act  of  Parliament;  they  meant  to  rule  and 
did  rule  by  means  of  parliament.  In  the 
quarrels  of  the  seventeenth  century  between 
king  and  commons  men  looked  back  to  the 
Lancastrian  period  as  the  golden  age  of  parlia- 
ment, and  precedents  from  that  period  were 
freely  quoted  for  parliamentary  use.  But  in 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       25 

the  fifteenth  century  the  times  were  not  ripe 
for  parliamentary  government.  The  powers 
of  parliament  fell  into  the  hands  of  turbulent 
nobles.  Henry  V  was  a  famous  and  capable 
warrior.  But  Henry  VI  began  his  reign  as 
an  infant,  and  ended  it  as  an  idiot;  he  was 
ruled  by  unscrupulous  uncles  and  a  terma- 
gant queen;  and  the  bloody  faction  fights 
known  as  the  Wars  of  the  Roses  brought  the 
Plantagenet  dynasty  to  a  close,  weeded  out 
the  older  nobility,  and  cleared  the  way  for  a 
new  form  of  monarchy. 

The  age  of  the  Tudors,  at  least  during  the 
reigns  of  Henry  VIII  and  Elizabeth,  is  a 
period  of  strong  monarchs  governing  through 
the  strength  of  parliament.  Henry  VIII 
accepted  Henry  IV's  principle  that  the  king 
should  rule  through  parliament,  but  worked 
that  principle  in  an  entirely  different  way. 
He  made  parliament  the  engine  of  his  will. 
He  persuaded  or  frightened  it  into  doing 
anything  he  pleased.  Under  his  guidance 
parliament  defied  and  crushed  all  other  pow- 
ers spiritual  and  temporal,  and  did  things 
which  no  king  or  parliament  had  ever  at- 
tempted to  do,  things  unheard  of  and  ter- 
rible. Elizabeth  scolded  her  parliaments  for 
meddling  with  matters  with  which,  in  her 
opinion,  they  had  no  concern,  and  more  than 
once  soundly  rated  the  Speaker  of  her  com- 
mons. But  she  never  carried  her  quarrels 
too  far  and  was  always  able  to  end  her 
disputes  by  some  clever  compromise.  The 


26  PARLIAMENT 

result  was  that  her  parliaments  usually  ac- 
quiesced in  and  gave  effect  to  her  wishes.  Be- 
fore Henry  VIII  the  life  of  parliament  was 
usually  comprised  within  a  single  session,  and 
the  sessions  were  short.  Parliaments  now 
grew  longer.  Henry  VIII's  Reformation  par- 
liament lasted  for  seven  years.  One  of  Eliza- 
beth's parliaments  lasted  for  eleven  years, 
though,  it  is  true,  it  held  only  three  sessions. 
Parliament  was  no  longer  a  meeting  dissolved 
as  soon  as  some  specific  business  was  finished. 
It  tended  to  become  a  permanent  power  in  the 
State,  and  a  power  with  formidable  attributes. 
A  monarch  that  swayed  and  did  not  fear  par- 
liament could  afford  to  recognize  its  sover- 
eignty, for  it  was  his  own.  And  never  were 
the  authority  and  sovereignty  of  parliament 
more  emphatically  asserted  than  in  Tudor 
times.  Sir  Thomas  Smith  was  secretary  to 
Queen  Elizabeth,  and  in  a  book  which  was 
published  in  1589,  and  which  he  called  The 
Commonwealth  of  England  and  the  manner  of 
government  thereof,  he  declares  that  "the 
most  high  and  absolute  power  of  the  realm 
of  England  consisteth  in  the  parliament." 
Such  doctrines  could  be  preached  with  safety 
while  Tudor  kingcraft  remained;  when  it 
departed  they  shook  and  upset  the  throne. 

It  was  in  Tudor  times  that  both  houses 
began  to  keep  their  journals  and  that  the 
house  of  commons  acquired  a  permanent 
home  of  their  own.  But  these  are  matters 
of  which  more  will  be  said  hereafter.  Owing 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       27 

to  the  existence  of  the  journals  we  now  begin 
to  know  much  more  about  the  proceedings 
of  parliament  than  in  previous  times.  Under 
the  Plantagenets  some  of  the  characteristic 
features  of  parliamentary  procedure,  such  as 
the  three  readings  of  bills,  had  been  settled, 
but  had  not  been  recorded.  In  the  journals 
the  dates  of  each  reading  are  given.  The 
entries  are  at  first  scanty,  but  are  soon  ampli- 
fied. Rulings  and  practices  are  noted,  pre- 
cedents are  searched  for  and  observed.  The 
records  of  the  Elizabethan  journals  are  ex- 
panded by  Sir  Symonds  d'Ewes  from  other 
sources.  Sir  Thomas  Smith,  in  the  book 
referred  to  above,  and  Hooker,  in  the  book 
which  he  wrote  for  the  guidance  of  the 
parliament  at  Dublin,  have  given  us  descrip- 
tions which  enable  us  to  understand  how 
business  was  conducted  in  the  English  parlia- 
ment under  the  great  queen.  The  general 
outlines  of  parliamentary  procedure  were 
settled,  and  much  of  the  common  law  of 
parliament,  the  law  which  is  not  to  be  found 
in  standing  orders,  may  be  traced  back  to 
Elizabethan  times. 

James  I  came  to  the  throne  by  inheritance. 
He  talked  much  and  foolishly  about  his  divine 
right  to  rule,  and  soon  came  into  collision 
with  his  parliaments.  Parliament  claimed 
and  obtained  some  important  rights,  such  as 
the  right  to  adjourn  without  the  king's  leave, 
and  the  right  to  determine  disputes  about  the 
validity  of  elections.  Other  questions,  such 


28  PARLIAMENT 

as  the  right  to  levy  taxes,  remained  to  be 
fought  out  under  his  successor.  The  king  and 
parliament  were  hostile  bodies,  and  parlia- 
ment was  jealous  of  the  king's  interference 
with,  or  even  knowledge  of,  its  proceedings. 

The  main  lines  of  parliamentary  procedure 
were  settled  during  the  seventeenth  century. 
The  committee  system  grew  up  under  Eliza- 
beth and  her  successor.  Small  committees 
were  appointed  to  consider  the  details  of  bills 
and  other  matters,  and  sat  either  at  West- 
minster or  sometimes  at  the  Temple  or  else- 
where. For  weightier  matters  larger  com- 
mittees were  appointed  and  had  a  tendency 
to  include  all  members  who  were  willing  to 
come,  for  the  difficulty  was  to  obtain  a 
quorum.  Hence  the  system  of  grand  com- 
mittees, and  of  committees  of  the  whole 
house,  which  will  be  described  in  a  later 
chapter.  Before  the  end  of  the  seventeenth 
century  parliamentary  procedure  began  to 
follow  the  lines  which  it  retained  until  after 
the  Reform  Act  of  1832.  The  first  edition  of 
Sir  Erskine  May's  book  on  parliamentary 
procedure  was  published  in  1844,  and  "the 
parliamentary  procedure  of  1844,"  says  Sir 
R.  Palgrave  in  his  preface  to  the  tenth  edi- 
tion, "was  essentially  the  procedure  on  which 
the  house  of  commons  conducted  its  busi- 
ness during  the  long  parliament." 

The  constitutional  quarrel  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  which  culminated  in  the 
great  civil  war,  was  at  first  whether  govern- 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       29 

ment  should  be  by  the  king  or  by  the  king  in 
parliament,  afterwards  whether  the  king 
should  govern  or  whether  parliament  should 
govern.  Strafford,  the  strong  minister  of 
a  weak  king,  tried  to  govern  without  parlia- 
ment, and  failed.  The  long  parliament  tried 
to  govern  without  a  king,  and  failed.  During 
the  revolutionary  period  the  house  of  com- 
mons set  up  executive  committees,  foreshad- 
owing the  famous  executive  committees  of 
the  French  Revolution;  but  government  by 
committees  was  not  a  success.  The  great 
rule  of  Cromwell  was  a  series  of  failures  to 
reconcile  the  authority  of  the  "single  person  " 
with  the  authority  of  parliament.  The  mon- 
archical regime  which  was  revived  under 
Charles  II  broke  down  under  James  II.  It 
was  left  for  the  "glorious  revolution"  of  1688, 
and  for  the  Hanoverian  dynasty,  to  develop 
the  ingenious  system  of  adjustments  and 
compromises  which  is  now  known,  sometimes 
as  cabinet  government,  sometimes  as  parlia- 
mentary government.  Of  the  growth  and 
working  of  this  system  more  will  be  said 
hereafter. 

The  two  last  of  the  parliamentary  periods 
referred  to  above  must  be  passed  over  very 
lightly.  The  eighteenth  century  was  a  great 
age  of  parliamentary  oratory,  but  it  was 
not  an  age  of  great  legislation.  The  terri- 
torial magnates  who,  or  whose  nominees, 
as  knights  of  the  shires  or  members  for 
pocket  boroughs,  constituted  the  house  of 


30  PARLIAMENT 

commons,  contented  themselves  in  the  main 
with  formulating  as  Acts  of  parliament  rules 
for  the  guidance  of  landowners  as  justices  of 
the  peace.  Parliamentary  procedure  tended 
to  stiffen  and  become  more  formal.  Im- 
portant constitutional  changes  were  silently 
going  on,  but  they  were  not,  as  a  rule,  marked 
by  legislation.  One  of  the  few  exceptions 
was  the  Septennial  Act  of  1715,  which  ex- 
tended from  three  years,  the  limit  fixed  by 
an  Act  of  1694,  to  seven  years,  the  maximum 
duration  of  a  parliament.  Power  rested  first 
with  the  families  of  the  great  Whig  magnates 
who  had  brought  about  the  Revolution  of 
1688,  then  for  a  time  with  the  king  and  his 
"friends,"  and  finally  with  the  parliamentary 
genius  whom  George  III  was  fortunate 
enough  to  obtain  as  chief  adviser,  the  younger 
Pitt. 

The  earthquake  of  the  French  Revolution, 
which  shook  all  Europe,  and  changed  its 
surface,  did  not  extend  across  the  English 
Channel.  It  produced  effects  here,  but  its 
immediate  effects  were  those  of  resistance 
and  reaction,  and  its  results  were  to  prolong 
the  period  of  the  old  regime  for  more  than 
thirty  years  after  the  close  of  the  eighteenth 
century. 

Leipsic  and  Waterloo  stopped  the  course 
of  the  Revolution  in  Europe.  But,  after  a 
trial  of  fifteen  years,  the  revived  French 
monarchy  of  the  Restoration  died  in  the 
Paris  barricades  of  1830.  Two  years  later 


ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT       31 

the  Act  of  1832  reformed  the  constitution  of 
the  house  of  commons,  and  brought  fresh 
powers  into  play.  After  the  lapse  of  another 
two  years  the  fire  of  October  16,  1834,  de- 
stroyed the  ancient  home  of  parliament.  Of 
the  buildings  which  had  sheltered  parlia- 
ments for  so  many  centuries  nothing  now  re- 
mains above  ground  except  the  great  hall 
which  William  Rufus  built  and  Richard  II 
rebuilt,  and  some  parts  of  the  cloisters  which 
were  added  to  St.  Stephen's  Chapel  shortly 
before  the  dissolution  of  its  chapter.  The 
new  parliament  had  to  build  a  new  home,  the 
home  which  is  the  present  Palace  of  West- 
minster. 


CHAPTER  II 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS 

IT  is  from  no  disrespect  for  the  house  of 
lords  that  the  description  of  that  house  is 
reserved  for  a  later  chapter,  but  because  the 
principal  share  of  parliamentary  business  is 
transacted  in  the  house  of  commons;  because 
the  position  of  the  older  house  is,  under  our 
constitution,  subordinate;  and  because  the 
position  and  functions  of  the  house  of  lords 
cannot  be  understood  until  the  functions  of 
the  house  of  commons  have  been  explained. 

A  double  thread  of  meaning  runs  through 
the  word  "commons."  Technically,  the 
house  of  commons,  at  the  time  of  its  institu- 
tion, was  the  community  or  body  represent- 
ing the  communities  of  the  counties  and  of 
the  boroughs.  "The  commons,'*  says  Stubbs, 
"are  the  communities,  the  organized  bodies 
of  freemen  of  the  shires  and  towns,  and  the 
estate  of  the  commons  is  the  general  body 
into  which,  for  the  purposes  of  parliament, 
these  communities  are  combined."  But  the 
word  has  another  shade  of  meaning,  reflected 
in  the  modern  use  of  the  word  "commoner." 
The  commons  are  those  who  are  not  included 
in  either  of  the  special  classes  of  clergy  and 
.32. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     33 

barons.  "The  persons  who  enjoy  no  special 
privilege,"  says  Maitland,  "who  have  no 
peculiar  status  of  barons  or  clerks,  are  com- 
mon men."  In  this  sense  they  correspond  to 
the  third  estate  of  France,  which,  on  the 
eve  of  the  French  Revolution,  according  to 
Sieyes,  was  nothing,  wished  to  be  something, 
and  ought  to  be  everything. 

The  technical  meaning  of  the  word  is,  for 
historical  purposes,  of  great  importance. 
Before  the  time  of  parliaments  both  the 
counties  and  the  boroughs  had  been  recog- 
nized as  communities  for  judicial,  fiscal  and 
administrative  purposes,  and  the  counties 
acted  as  such  in  their  county  courts.  The 
boroughs  were  winning  for  themselves, 
through  charters,  communal  rights  resembling 
and  often  suggested  by  those  of  the  French 
communes.  It  was  but  a  step  forward  to 
utilize  existing  ideas  and  institutions  for 
the  purpose  of  national  and  parliamentary 
representation. 

The  history  of  the  county  franchise  is 
comparatively  simple.  The  sheriffs  were 
directed  by  their  writs  to  cause  an  election  to 
be  held  of  two  knights  for  each  shire;  election 
was  to  be  made  in  and  by  the  county  court; 
and  the  electors  were  those  who  were  entitled 
to  attend  and  take  part  in  the  proceedings 
of  that  court.  No  further  definition  of  the 
machinery  of  election  was  attempted,  or 
was,  at  first,  necessary.  The  sheriff  would 
conduct  the  proceedings  in  the  customary 


34  PARLIAMENT 

fashion,  and  would  have  a  good  deal  to  say 
as  to  who  should  take  part  in  them.  It  was 
not  until  the  reign  of  Henry  VI  that  any 
statutory  restriction  was  placed  on  the  class 
of  electors.  The  Act  of  1430,  which  was 
passed  to  prevent  riotous  and  disorderly 
elections,  directed  that  the  electors  were  to 
be  people  dwelling  in  the  county,  whereof 
every  one  was  to  have  free  land  or  tenement 
to  the  value  of  forty  shillings  a  year  at  least 
(a  high  value  for  that  period)  above  all 
charges.  This  Act  continued  to  regulate  the 
county  franchise  for  more  than  four  cen- 
turies, until  the  Reform  Act  of  1832.  But  the 
definition  of  the  qualifying  freehold  gave 
much  employment  to  lawyers  and  parliamen- 
tary committees,  and  its  meaning  was  so  in- 
terpreted as  to  facilitate  the  manufacture  of 
qualifications  and  the  creation  of  faggot 
voters.  Leaseholders  and  copyholders  had 
no  votes. 

The  number  of  parliamentary  counties  did 
not  vary  much  before  1832.  At  first  there 
were  thirty-seven  counties  returning  two 
members  each.  The  counties  of  Chester  and 
Durham,  which  were  counties  palatine,  and 
under  a  semi-independent  authority,  did  not 
come  into  the  parliamentary  system  until  a 
later  date.  Henry  VIII  brought  in  the  Welsh 
counties.  The  Union  with  Scotland  and  with 
Ireland  completed  the  list. 

The  history  of  the  borough  franchise  is 
far  more  complicated.  In  the  first  place  the 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     35 

writs  addressed  to  the  sheriff  for  returns  to 
the  early  parliaments  merely  told  him  to 
provide  for  the  return  of  two  members  for 
each  city  or  borough  in  his  county,  and  did 
not  specify  the  places  which  were  to  be  treated 
as  boroughs.  That  was  assumed  to  be  known. 
Hence  much  room  for  uncertainty  and  for  the 
exercise  of  discretion  on  the  part  of  the  sheriff. 
It  had  not  yet  been  discovered  that  repre- 
sentation of  a  borough  in  parliament  was  a 
source  of  profit,  local  or  personal,  to  the 
borough,  or  conferred  much  personal  ad- 
vantage on  its  representative.  On  the  con- 
trary, when  members  were  paid  wages  by 
their  constituencies,  and  when  places  recog- 
nized as  boroughs  were  taxed  for  subsidies  at 
a  higher  rate  than  shires,  representation  in 
parliament  was  an  onerous  privilege.  Towns 
often  desired  not  to  be  represented,  and 
probably  made  arrangements  with  the  sheriff 
for  this  purpose.  Later  on  the  tide  turned 
and  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries 
the  number  of  boroughs  increased  with  great 
rapidity.  The  increase  was  effected  in  vari- 
ous ways.  A  borough  which  had  ceased  to 
return  members  might  be  revived  in  pur- 
suance of  a  direction  to  the  sheriff.  The  king 
might  grant  a  charter  giving  a  right  of  repre- 
sentation. At  a  later  date  a  resolution  of  the 
house  of  commons  sufficed  for  the  right.  The 
Tudor  monarchs  exercised  freely  their  power 
of  creating  boroughs  by  charter.  They  used 
their  parliaments  and  had  to  find  means  of 


36  PARLIAMENT 

controlling  them.  In  the  creation  of  "pock- 
et" or  "rotten"  boroughs,  Queen  Elizabeth 
was  probably  the  worst  offender.  She  had 
much  influence  in  her  duchy  of  Cornwall,  and 
many  of  the  Cornish  boroughs  which  obtained 
such  a  scandalous  reputation  in  later  times 
were  created  by  her  for  the  return  of  those 
whom  the  lords  of  her  council  would  consider 
"safe"  men.  The  practice  of  creating  new 
parliamentary  boroughs  by  charter  lessened 
under  the  Stuarts,  and  fell  into  desuetude 
after  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  The  charter 
which  he  granted  to  Newark  was  the  last 
royal  charter  conferring  a  parliamentary 
franchise. 

There  was  no  Act  for  the  re-distribution 
of  borough  seats  until  1832,  and  an  interest- 
ing map  prefixed  to  the  first  volume  of  Mr. 
Porritt's  Unreformed  House  of  Commons, 
shows  how  borough  representation  stood  at 
that  date.  A  glance  at  the  map  will  disclose 
two  features,  first,  the  proportionately  large 
number  of  boroughs  on  or  near  the  coast 
from  the  Wash  southwards  and  westwards 
to  the  Severn  estuary,  and  next,  the  dense 
cluster  of  little  boroughs  in  the  extreme 
south-west.  To  some  extent  these  features 
were  survivals  from  an  age  of  different  social 
and  economical  conditions,  from  the  time 
when  the  pulse  of  English  life  beat  most 
strongly  on  the  coasts,  and  when  the  growth 
of  trade  and  manufacture  had  not  yet  filled 
up  the  central  and  northern  regions.  But 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     37 

the  existence  of  many  of  the  smaller  boroughs 
was  due  to  other  reasons.  Reference  has 
been  made  above  to  the  profuse  creation  of 
Cornish  boroughs.  In  what  is  now  the 
Liskeard  division  of  Cornwall,  a  division 
which  returns  one  member,  there  were  in 
1832  nine  boroughs  returning  eighteen  mem- 
bers. In  this  region,  and  elsewhere,  there 
were  curious  little  twin  boroughs,  having 
no  reason  for  their  separate  existence  except 
the  desire  to  multiply  members.  Such  were 
West  and  East  Looe,  divided  by  a  river 
which  was  spanned  by  a  bridge  of  fifteen 
arches.  Such  also  were  Weymouth  and 
Melcombe  Regis,  which  were  united  for 
administrative  purposes,  but  divided  for 
purposes  of  parliamentary  representation.  In 
the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  these 
were  controlled  by  the  notorious  borough- 
monger,  Bubb  Dodington,  who  atoned 
for  his  many  misdeeds  by  leaving  a  diary  in 
which  they  are  recorded.  Bramber  and 
Steyning  were  close  to  each  other  in  Sussex, 
and  part  of  Bramber  was  in  the  centre  of 
Steyning.  Each  returned  two  members.  In 
Yorkshire,  Aldborough  and  Boroughbridge 
were  in  the  same  parish,  and  about  half-a-mile 
apart.  The  electors  of  Boroughbridge  num- 
bered sixty-five,  those  of  Aldborough  about 
fifty.  Each  returned  two  members,  at  the 
time  when  Birmingham  was  not  represented 
in  parliament. 

Whilst  the  selection  and  distribution  of  par- 


38  PARLIAMENT 

liamentary  boroughs  was  arbitrary,  nothing 
could  be  more  various,  confused  or  un- 
certain than  the  parliamentary  franchise 
which  they  enjoyed.  There  was  no  general 
law  regulating  the  franchise  in  boroughs. 
Everything  depended  on  local  custom  and 
usage,  settled  or  unsettled  by  the  decisions 
of  parliamentary  committees,  which  turned 
upon  personal  and  political  considerations. 
The  "unreformed"  boroughs  as  they  stood 
before  1832  have  been  roughly  divided  into 
four  groups.  There  were  scot  and  lot  and 
potwalloper  boroughs,  burgage  boroughs,  cor- 
poration boroughs,  and  freemen  boroughs. 

In  the  scot  and  lot  group  the  franchise 
was,  in  theory,  very  democratic.  Any  one 
who  was  liable  to  pay  "scot,"  or  local  dues, 
or  bear  "lot,"  that  is  to  say,  take  his  share 
in  the  burden  of  local  offices,  was  entitled 
to  the  franchise.  In  later  times  liability  to 
the  poor  rate  was  taken  as  a  general  test. 
At  the  time  of  the  first  Reform  Act,  Gatton, 
with  135  inhabitants,  was  a  scot  and  lot 
borough.  So,  at  the  other  end  of  the  popu- 
lation scale,  was  Westminster.  The  pot- 
walloper,  who  is  treated  as  belonging  to  this 
group,  was  an  ancient  and  picturesque 
person.  His  very  name  was  a  corruption. 
It  was  developed  out  of  "pot waller,"  and 
that  word  appears  to  have  been  the  mistake 
of  a  scribe  for  "potboiler."  He  was  a  man 
who  was  in  a  position  to  boil  a  pot  of  his  own, 
and  was  not  dependent  for  his  means  on  any 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     39 

one  else.  On  the  eve  of  an  election  a  pot- 
walloper  might  be  seen  spreading  his  board 
in  front  of  his  hovel,  to  show  that  he  was 
entitled  to  the  franchise.  In  burgage  bor- 
oughs the  right  to  vote  depended  on  showing 
title  to  a  house  or  piece  of  land  by  the  form  of 
tenure  known  as  burgage  tenure.  In  some 
cases  residence  was  necessary,  and  the  chim- 
neys, of  burgage  hovels  were  carefully  pre- 
served, as  evidence  of  the  possibility  of  resi- 
dence. But  the  necessary  period  of  residence 
might  be  short,  and  a  single  night  might 
suffice.  Coaches  could  be  seen  carrying  down 
qualifying  burdens  on  the  eve  of  the  poll. 
In  other  cases  residence  was  not  necessary, 
or  even  possible.  At  Droitwich  the  qualifi- 
cation of  an  elector  was  being  "seised  in  fee 
of  a  small  quantity  of  salt  water  arising  out 
of  a  pit."  It  was  proved  before  a  parlia- 
mentary committee  that  the  pit  had  been 
dried  up  for  more  than  forty  years.  But 
there  were  title  deeds  which  could  be  pro- 
duced by  the  voter  at  the  poll.  At  Downton 
in  Wiltshire,  one  of  the  burgage  tenements 
was  in  the  middle  of  a  watercourse.  At 
Old  Sarum,  where  ploughed  fields  gave  seven 
votes  which  returned  two  members,  there 
was  no  building,  and  a  tent  had  to  be  erected 
for  the  shelter  of  the  returning  officer.  Title 
deeds  to  qualifying  property  of  this  kind 
passed  easily  and  rapidly  from  hand  to  hand 
as  occasion  required.  Hence  the  class  of 
"snatchpaper"  voters.  A  woman  could  not 


40  PARLIAMENT 

vote  herself,  but  she  could  pass  on  her  qualifi- 
cation temporarily  to  any  man.  At  West- 
bury  a  widow's  qualifying  tenement  was 
worth  £100  to  her  in  1747. 

For  the  mode  in  which  an  election  might 
be  conducted  in  a  burgage  borough  Sir  George 
Trevelyan's  description  of  the  first  election 
of  Charles  James  Fox  may  suffice.  His 
father  and  uncle  wanted  to  keep  their  boys 
steady,  a  difficult  matter,  so  they  clubbed  to- 
gether to  find  a  borough.  For  Charles,  who 
was  then  just  nineteen,  the  two  brothers 
"selected  Midhurst,  the  most  comfortable  of 
constituencies  from  the  point  of  view  of  a 
representative;  for  the  right  of  election  rested 
in  a  few  small  holdings,  on  which  no  human 
being  resided,  distinguished  among  the  pas- 
tures and  the  stubble  that  surrounded  them 
by  a  large  stone  set  up  on  end  in  the  middle  of 
each  portion.  These  burgage  tenures,  as 
they  were  called,  had  all  been  bought  up  by 
a  single  proprietor,  Viscount  Montagu,  who, 
when  an  election  was  in  prospect,  assigned 
a  few  of  them  to  his  servants,  with  instruc- 
tions to  nominate  the  members  and  then 
make  back  the  property  to  their  employer. 
This  ceremony  was  performed  in  March  1768, 
and  the  steward  of  the  estate  who  acted  as 
the  returning  officer,  declared  that  Charles 
James  Fox  had  been  duly  chosen  as  one  of 
the  burgesses  for  Midhurst,  at  a  time  when 
that  young  gentleman  was  still  amusing  him- 
self in  Italy." 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE    41 

In  the  "corporation  boroughs"  or  "close 
boroughs,"  the  right  to  vote  was  restricted 
by  charter  to  the  members  of  what  was  called 
the  governing  body  of  the  borough,  a  body 
very  different  in  constitution  and  functions 
from  the  governing  bodies  created  by  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835.  They 
were  usually  self-elected,  they  were  often 
non-resident,  they  were  not  responsible  to 
any  one  for  the  management  of  municipal 
affairs,  and  they  existed,  not  primarily  for 
the  good  administration  of  the  borough,  but 
as  organizations  for  returning  members  to 
the  house  of  commons.  In  the  eighteenth 
century  they  mostly  fell  into  the  hands  of 
patrons,  and,  for  a  suitable  consideration, 
returned  the  members  nominated  by  their 
patrons.  With  the  reform  of  parliament  the 
reason  for  their  existence  ceased,  and  the 
Act  of  1835  followed  speedily  after  the  Act 
of  1832. 

The  freeman  who  exercised  the  parliamen- 
tary franchise  in  the  eighteenth  century  was 
a  different  person  from  the  freeman  who 
voted  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centu- 
ries, and  belonged  to  a  more  restricted  class. 
Freedom  of  the  borough,  membership  of  the 
general  corporation  which  constituted  the 
borough,  as  distinguished  from  its  governing 
body,  might  be  acquired  in  various  ways — 
by  birth,  by  marriage,  by  real  or  nominal 
service  as  apprenticeship  to  some  freeman 
in  his  craft  or  trade,  by  gift  or  purchase. 


42  PARLIAMENT 

In  London,  membership  of  one  of  the  trading 
companies,  the  livery  companies,  was  neces- 
sary. Where  freedom  came  by  marriage,  it 
was  practically  a  dower  to  the  freeman's 
daughter,  and  had  a  very  tangible  pecuniary 
value  at  election  times.  "I  have  heard  that 
in  former  days,"  wrote  a  town-clerk  of  Bristol, 
"the  prospect  of  an  election  would  bring 
hesitating  or  lagging  swains  to  a  sense  of  the 
desirability  of  prompt  action."  There  were 
honorary  freemen  and  non-resident  freemen, 
both  having  votes.  The  tendency  of  parlia- 
mentary action  was  to  restrict  the  class  of 
freemen,  for  the  representation  of  a  borough 
with  numerous  freemen  was  an  expensive 
luxury.  On  the  other  hand,  it  might  be 
convenient  to  swamp  the  existing  body  of 
electors.  At  Bristol,  in  1812,  1,720  freemen 
were  admitted  with  a  view  to  an  election  in 
the  autumn  of  that  year. 

Under  the  electoral  system  as  it  worked 
before  1832  a  small  number  of  powerful  and 
wealthy  men  controlled  all  the  electrons. 
Not  that  the  house  of  commons  was  un- 
influenced by  public  opinion.  Any  great 
wave  of  feeling  or  opinion  was  sure  to  reach 
the  house  and  to  produce  effects  there.  The 
counties  were  more  independent  than  the 
boroughs,  and  the  larger  boroughs  some- 
times had  views  of  their  own  as  to  the  way 
in  which  their  members  should  vote.  But 
the  number  of  pocket  boroughs,  whose  mem- 
bers were  expected  to  vote  as  their  patrons 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE    43 

told  them,  was  very  large.  John  Wilson 
Croker,  who  knew  the  house  of  commons 
during  the  first  quarter  of  the  last  century 
as  well  as  any  one,  put  the  members  returned 
by  patrons  at  276  out  of  658.  Before  the 
union  with  Ireland  increased  the  number 
of  members  by  100  the  proportion  was  prob- 
ably greater,  for  the  number  of  nomination 
seats  in  Ireland  did  not  exceed  twenty.  It  has 
been  estimated  that  from  about  1760  to  1832 
nearly  one-half  of  the  members  of  the  house  of 
commons  owed  their  seats  to  patrons.  Glad- 
stone once  eulogized  nomination  boroughs  as 
a  means  of  bringing  young  men  of  promise 
into  the  house,  and  Bagehot  went  so  far  as 
to  describe  them  as  an  organ  for  specialized 
political  thought.  But  a  study  of  electoral 
statistics  and  parliamentary  history  tends  to 
show  that  the  young  men  of  promise  who 
were  given  a  comparatively  free  hand  were 
rare,  and  that  the  tie  between  the  nominated 
member  and  his  patron  was  much  less  roman- 
tic and  more  prosaic  and  practical  than  as 
conceived  by  Bagehot.  A  nominee  member 
was  usually  expected  to  obey  his  patron's 
orders,  and  to  study  his  interests.  In  1810  a 
younger  brother,  who  had  been  put  into 
parliament  by  his  senior,  was  reprimanded 
for  neglecting  the  family  interests.  "As  to 
my  being  justifiable  in  thus  abandoning  the 
interests  of  my  family,  after  all  the  money 
that  has  been  spent  to  bring  me  into  parlia- 
ment," he  writes  in  reply,  "I  have  only  to 


44  PARLIAMENT 

answer  that  the  money  so  spent  has,  I  think, 
been  well  spent.  Your  lord  lieutenancy  and 
Peter's  receiver-generalship  have  been  the 
consequence.  In  point  of  pecuniary  advan- 
tage to  the  family  the  receiver-generalship 
pays  more  than  the  interest  on  the  capital 
sunk."  The  seat  was  a  good  family  invest- 
ment. For  patronship,  discreetly  used, 
brought  honours  and  lucrative  sinecures. 
Sir  James  Lowther  returned  nine  members, 
the  "Lowther  ninepins";  he  obtained  a  peer- 
age, and  successive  steps  in  the  peerage. 
George  Selwyn  returned  two  members  for 
Ludgershall,  and  was  sometimes  able  to  re- 
turn one  of  the  members  for  Gloucester. 
"He  was,"  says  Sir  George  Trevelyan,  "at 
one  and  the  same  time  Surveyor-General  of 
Crown  Lands,  which  he  never  surveyed; 
Registrar  of  Chancery  at  Barbadoes,  which 
he  never  visited;  and  Surveyor  of  the  Melt- 
ings and  Clerk  of  the  Irons  in  the  Mint,  where 
he  showed  himself  once  a  week  in  order  to  eat 
a  dinner  which  he  ordered,  but  for  which  the 
nation  paid."  The  payments  to  constituents, 
in  the  form  of  cash  or  office,  were  smaller  but 
more  numerous.  Posts  in  the  customs  and 
excise  were  freely  used.  Bossinney,  a  little 
fishing  village  in  the  north  of  Cornwall,  was 
once  a  borough.  When  the  Act  of  1782 
disfranchised  revenue  officers  it  reduced  the 
voters  at  Bossinney  to  a  single  elector. 

If  a  candidate  could  not  find  a  patron,  or 
did  not  wish  to  be  dependent  on  a  patron, 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     45 

he  had  to  buy  a  seat.  Many  of  the  reformers, 
men  such  as  Burdett,  Romilly  and  Hume, 
had  to  buy  their  seats.  Throughout  the 
eighteenth  and  the  early  part  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  seats  were  freely  and  openly 
bought  and  sold.  They  were  even  advertised 
for  sale,  like  livings  in  the  church.  The 
price  of  seats  went  up  rapidly  during  the 
latter  hah*  of  the  eighteenth  century,  espe- 
cially when  East  Indian  nabobs  entered  the 
market.  The  government  of  course  took  a 
large  share  in  these  transactions,  and  treasury 
boroughs  were  kept  for  those  who  were  wanted 
on  the  treasury  bench,  or  could  be  counted  on 
to  give  a  safe  vote  in  its  neighbourhood.  Bar- 
gains were  struck  as  to  how  the  cost  should 
be  divided  between  the  treasury  and  the 
member.  "Mr.  Legge,"  wrote  Lord  North  in 
1774  to  Robinson,  his  chief  election  manager, 
"can  afford  only  £400.  If  he  comes  in  for 
Lostwithiel  he  will  cost  the  public  2,000 
guineas.  Gascoyne  should  have  the  refusal 
of  Tregony  if  he  will  pay  £1,000,  but  I  do  not 
see  why  we  should  bring  him  in  cheaper  than 
any  other  servant  of  the  crown.  If  he  will 
not  pay,  he  must  give  way  to  Mr.  Best  or 
Mr.  Peachy."  The  Whig  administration  of 
1806  adopted  a  more  economical  method. 
They  bought  seats  cheap  and  sold  them  dear, 
and  thus  saved  money  for  the  public.  A 
seat  could  be  bought  for  a  parliament,  or 
hired  for  a  term  of  years  like  a  country  house. 
Prices  varied  much,  according  to  place  and 


46  PARLIAMENT 

time,  but  between  1812  and  1832  the  ordinary 
price  of  a  seat  bought  for  a  parliament  is 
said  to  have  been  between  £5,000  and  £6,000. 
Without  concrete  illustrations  such  as  have 
been  given  it  is  impossible  to  realize  in  the 
twentieth  century  the  working  of  the  electoral 
system  which  prevailed  one  hundred  years 
ago.  The  details  are  sordid  and  unpleasant. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  on  these 
sordid  foundations  was  built  a  government 
whose  strength  and  stability  won  the  admira- 
tion and  envy  of  Europe.  Burke,  and  the 
other  conservatives  of  his  time,  Whig  and 
Tory,  had  solid  reasons  for  their  convictions 
when  they  resisted  all  changes  in  the  electoral 
system  under  which  they  lived.  "Our  rep- 
resentation," wrote  Burke,  "has  been  found 
perfectly  adequate  to  all  the  purposes  for 
which  a  representation  of  the  people  can  be 
desired  or  devised.  I  defy  the  enemies  of  our 
constitution  to  show  the  contrary."  It  is 
true  that  he  wrote  these  words  in  his  later 
days,  under  the  terrifying  influence  of  the 
French  Revolution,  but  they  represented  the 
views  which  he  had  always  held  about 
the  franchise.  According  to  him,  the  variety 
of  franchise  in  the  boroughs,  and  the  mode 
in  which  the  constituencies  were  controlled, 
roughly  represented  the  various  interests  of 
the  nation,  and  its  ruling  forces.  The  king 
and  his  ministers  had  to  rule,  the  discordant 
elements  in  the  country  and  the  constitution 
had  to  be  kept  together.  It  was  difficult  to 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     47 

see  how  any  form  of  government  could  be 
maintained  except  by  the  employment  of 
methods  such  as  have  been  described  above. 
The  ruling  class  of  the  eighteenth  century 
were  coarse  and  corrupt,  but  they  were  capa- 
ble and  courageous.  They  made  great  blun- 
ders, they  were  blind  and  indifferent  to  great 
evils,  but  they  weathered  terrible  storms.  | 

Into  the  various  causes  which  brought 
about  the  Reform  Act  of  1832  this  is  not  the 
place  to  enter.  The  generation  of  statesmen 
who  had  carried  on  the  great  war  had  passed 
away.  The  governments  of  the  later  'twen- 
ties were  weak  and  unstable.  The  reaction 
against  the  excesses  of  the  French  Revolution- 
was  losing  its  force.  Bentham's  principles, 
which  were  hostile  to  a  privileged  class,  and 
made  in  the  long  run  for  democracy,  were  be- 
ing popularized  by  such  men  as  James  Mill  and 
Francis  Place.  But,  above  all,  there  was  grave 
and  growing  discontent  on  the  part  of  the 
middle  class  with  the  existing  state  of  things, 
with  their  exclusion  from  political  power, 
and  with  the  practical  grievances  which, 
in  their  opinion,  were  due  to  that  exclusion. 
They  felt  that  the  house  of  commons  was 
not  in  touch  with  the  country  at  large, 
that  it  failed  to  represent  the  most  vital 
and  growing  elements  in  the  nation.  The 
Reform  Bill  was  introduced  by  Whig  aristo- 
crats, but  it  was  the  middle  class  that  car- 
ried it  through. 

The  Reform  Act  of  1832  made  a  radical 


48  PARLIAMENT 

change  in  the  system  of  elections  and  in  the 
constitution  of  the  house  of  commons.  It 
redistributed  seats,  it  simplified  and  ration- 
alized the  franchise,  it  established  registers 
of  electors. 

|  The  number  of  seats  in  the  house  of 
commons  had  been  rapidly  increased  under 
the  Tudors,  less  rapidly  under  the  Stuarts. 
Thus  Henry  VIII  created  38  seats,  including 
the  Welsh  constituencies,  and  Elizabeth  62. 
,The  union  with  Scotland  in  1707  added  45 
members,  that  with  Ireland  in  1801,  100.  In 
1832  the  total  number  of  members  was  658. 
Five  of  the  English  boroughs  returned  single 
members.  Yorkshire  sent  four  members, 
having  gained  two  by  the  disfranchisement 
of  Grampound  in  1821.  The  city  of  London 
also  sent  four  members.  With  these  excep- 
tions, each  constituency  in  England  returned 
two  members,  the  number  fixed  for  the 
earliest  English  parliaments.  Each  of  the 
twelve  counties  and  twelve  boroughs  in  Wales 
returned  a  single  member. 

The  Act  of  1832  materially  altered  the 
distribution  of  seats.  It  disfranchised  in 
England  fifty-six  boroughs  absolutely,  and 
thirty-one  to  the  extent  of  depriving  each  of 
one  member.  The  seats  taken  from  the 
boroughs  were  given  to  counties  and  large 
towns. 

The  alterations  made  by  the  Act  in  the 
parliamentary  franchise  were  numerous  and 
important.  In  the  counties  it  preserved  the 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE    49 

old  forty-shilling  freehold  franchise,  with 
some  limitations,  and  it  added  some  new 
classes  of  voters.  It  enfranchised  four  main 
classes:  (1)  the  £10  copyholders,  (2)  the  £10 
long  leaseholders,  (3)  the  £50  short  lease- 
holders, and  (4)  the  £50  occupiers. 

Into  the  boroughs  the  Act  introduced  one 
uniform  franchise,  the  £10  occupation  fran- 
chise which  was  in  force  until  1867.  The 
Act  preserved  some  of  the  old  qualifications, 
but  placed  them  under  restrictions  intended 
to  guard  against  their  abuse.  Freemen  were 
still  entitled  to  vote,  as  such,  in  certain 
boroughs.  But  the  old  qualifications  had  in 
most  cases  been  made  unimportant  by  the 
extension  of  the  occupation  franchise. 

Finally,  the  Act  introduced  the  machinery 
of  parliamentary  registration,  substantially 
on  its  existing  lines.  Since  1832  a  qualifi- 
cation to  vote  entitles  a  man  to  be  placed  on 
the  register,  not  to  vote.  Unless  he  is  on  the 
register  he  is  not  entitled  to  vote.  If  he  is 
on  the  register  he  is  presumably  entitled  to 
vote. 

Separate  Reform  Acts  for  Scotland  and 
Ireland,  framed  on  the  same  general  lines  as 
the  English  Act,  were  passed  in  the  same  year. 
They  gave  three  additional  members  to 
Scotland,  and  three  to  Ireland,  but  the  total 
number  of  seats  for  the  United  Kingdom  was 
not  altered. 

The  Reform  Act  of  1832  did  not  realize  the 
hopes  of  its  friends  or  the  fears  of  its  foes. 


50  PARLIAMENT 

Like  most  English  Acts,  it  was  based  on  com- 
promise, not  on  abstract  principle.  Its  ob- 
jects were  to  remedy  the  most  obvious 
grievances,  to  remove  the  most  glaring 
anomalies  and  abuses.  In  dealing  with  dis- 
tribution, it  did  not  parcel  out  the  country 
into  equal,  or  approximately  equal,  electoral 
districts.  It  merely  shifted  seats,  with  some 
regard  to  the  population  and  character  of 
the  places  to  be  represented.  It  preserved 
old  franchises,  and  superimposed  new  fran- 
chises upon  them.  It  did  not  introduce 
and  was  not  intended  to  introduce,  democracy. 
It  gave  electoral  power,  in  the  counties,  to 
the  landholders  with  a  few  large  farmers;  in 
the  towns,  to  the  great  middle  class.  The 
borough  electorate  in  England  and  Wales 
was  increased  by  about  100,000.  There  was 
no  finality  about  the  Act.  It  was  a  step 
forward,  suggesting  further  steps  at  a  later 
date.  It  did  not  put  an  end  to  bribery, 
corruption,  or  the  exercise  of  undue  influence. 
But  the  opportunities  for  these  practices 
were  made  fewer  and  less  easy,  and  the  prac- 
tices became  less  flagrant  and  universal. 

Thus  the  Act  of  1832  was  not  the  product 
of,  and  did  not  effect,  a  revolution.  But  its 
importance,  political,  social  and  economical, 
cannot  be  exaggerated.  It  was  one  of  the 
great  landmarks  of  English  history. 

The  reformed  house  of  commons  reflected 
the  virtues  of  the  middle  class,  and  their 
weaknesses.  The  influence  of  the  middle 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     51 

class  preponderated,  as  under  the  contem- 
porary bourgeois  rule  of  Louis  Philippe. 
But  Louis  Philippe's  regime  died  of  corrup- 
tion and  stagnation  in  1848,  whilst  the  English 
chartism  of  that  year  shook  neither  parlia- 
ment nor  the  throne.  For  the  British  par- 
liament had  justified  its  existence  in  its 
renovated  form,  and  had  accomplished  some 
great  things.  It  had  reformed  the  poor  law; 
it  had  reformed  municipal  government;  it  had 
reformed  the  fiscal  system. 

It  is  in  the  sphere  of  legislation  that  the 
difference  between  the  unreformed  and  the 
reformed  house  of  commons  is  most  marked. 
It  is  impossible  to  emphasize  too  strongly  the 
enormous  change  which  the  Reform  Act  of 
1832  introduced  into  the  character  of  English 
legislation,  or  the  complete  contrast  between 
the  legislation  which  preceded  and  the 
legislation  which  followed  that  date.  The 
eighteenth  century  and  the  first  two  decades 
of  the  nineteenth  century  were  prolific  of 
legislation,  but  it  was  of  an  ephemeral  charac- 
ter. The  parliament  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury passed  many  laws  which  would  now  be 
classed  as  local  Acts,  for  authorizing  the 
construction  of  roads,  canals  and  bridges, 
and  was  never  tired  of  regulating,  after  its 
lights,  the  conditions  of  labor,  the  conduct 
of  trades  and  industries,  and  the  relief  of  the 
poor.  But  it  created  no  new  institutions. 
It  is  from  the  Reform  Act  that  date  the 
series  of  Acts  which  began  with  remodelling 


52  PARLIAMENT 

•»- 

the  poor  law  and  municipal  corporations,  and 
which  have  completely  altered  the  framework 
of  our  central  and  local  government.  And 
from  the  same  time  dates  that  special  re- 
sponsibility of  the  government  for  legislation 
which  is  now  so  marked  a  feature  of  the  par- 
liament at  Westminster.  Sir  Charles  Wood, 
afterwards  Lord  Halifax,  first  took  his  seat 
in  the  house  of  commons  in  1828,  and,  when 
talking  to  Mr.  Nassau  Senior  in  1855,  he 
dwelt  on  the  changed  attitude  of  the  gover- 
ment  towards  legislation.  "When  I  was  first 
in  parliament,"  he  said,  "twenty-seven  years 
ago,  the  functions  of  the  government  were 
chiefly  executive.  Changes  in  our  laws  were 
proposed  by  independent  members,  and 
carried,  not  as  party  questions,  by  their 
combined  action  on  both  sides.  Now,  when 
an  independent  member  brings  forward  a 
subject,  it  is  not  to  propose  himself  a  measure, 
but  to  call  to  it  the  attention  of  the  govern- 
ment. All  the  house  joins  in  declaring  that 
the  present  state  of  the  law  is  abominable, 
and  in  requiring  the  government  to  provide 
a  remedy.  As  soon  as  the  government  has 
obeyed,  and  proposed  one,  they  all  oppose 
it.  Our  defects  as  legislators,  which  is  not 
our  business,  damage  us  as  administrators, 
which  is  our  business."  This  was  a  natural 
expression  to  fall  from  the  lips  of  an  experi- 
enced statesman  who  had  lived  through  the 
change,  and  had  not  quite  lost  the  habit  of 
mind  which  preceded  it.  And  one  still 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     53 

hears  from  private  members  regrets  for  the 
time  when  their  predecessors  enjoyed  greater 
freedom  of  legislative  action,  and  denuncia- 
tions of  government  encroachments  on  their 
legislative  opportunities.  But  the  change 
was  inevitable.  The  great  demand  for  new 
laws,  especially  laws  which  create,  remodel, 
and  regulate  administrative  machinery,  and 
the  importance,  difficulty,  and  complexity 
of  the  legislative  measures  required,  neces- 
sarily lessen  the  share  of  the  private  member 
in  the  initiation  and  passing  of  laws,  and 
increase  the  responsibility  of  the  government 
for  the  work  of  legislation. 

The  great  outburst  of  parliamentary  activ- 
ity  immediately  after  1832  was  naturally  fol- 
lowed by  a  reaction,  and  there  were  periods 
of  failure  and  inactivity,  legislative  and  ad- 
ministrative. Walter  Bagehot  has  given  an 
inimitable  description  of  the  Palmerstonian 
house  of  commons,  as  it  stood  in  the  years 
1865  and  1866.  No  one  could  hit  off  more 
neatly  the  habits  and  ways  of  that  house  or 
was  more  fully  aware  that  its  leader,  who  had 
been  in  political  harness  long  before  1832, 
represented  traditions  of  government  which 
were  passing  away,  and  ought  to  pass  away. 
Palmerston  in  his  later  years  opposed  a  steady 
and  usually  an  effective  resistance  to  all 
changes,  and  his  last  ministry,  from  1859  to 
1866,  was  a  period  of  exceptional  barrenness 
in  legislation.  But  when,  after  1867,  Bage- 
hot wrote  the  preface  to  the  second  edition  of 


54  PARLIAMENT 

his  book  on  the  English  Constitution,  it  is 
evident  that  he  had  serious  misgivings  about 
the  effect  of  that  Act,  and  one  suspects  that 
he  looked  back  to  the  Palmerstonian  period 
as  the  golden  age  of  what  was,  in  his  opinion, 
the  best  of  all  governments,  a  safe,  sober, 
cautious  middle-class  government. 

The  Reform  Act  of  1832  had  shown  the  pos- 
sibility of  making  changes  in  an  electoral 
system  which  was  venerable,  and  was  vener- 
ated, by  reason  of  its  antiquity.  It  suggested 
and  paved  the  way  for  further  changes. 
There  was,  as  has  been  said  above,  no  finality 
in  its  provisions.  The  forty-shilling  free- 
holder came  down  from  the  middle  ages. 
But  there  was  nothing  venerable  or  sacros- 
anct about  the  £50  leaseholder  or  the  £10 
occupier.  If  £10,  why  not  some  other  figure? 

Disraeli  was  the  first  minister  who  was 
bold  enough  to  propose  dispensing  with  all 
tests  of  rental  or  rating,  and  to  offer  the 
borough  franchise  to  householders  as  such. 
The  history  of  the  Representation  of  the 
People  Act,  1867,  is  well  known,  and  its  inner 
side  was  revealed  many  years  ago  in  Lord 
Malmesbury's  indiscreet  Memoirs  of  an  Ex- 
Minister.  The  bill  of  1867,  as  introduced, 
while  conferring  the  household  franchise, 
surrounded  it  with  safeguards.  The  house- 
holder was  required  to  have  resided  for 
two  years,  and  to  have  paid  his  rates 
personally.  A  householder  paying  twenty 
shillings  in  direct  taxation  was  to  have  a  sec- 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     55 

ond  vote,  and  there  were  some  special  fran- 
chises as  in  previous  bills.  But  the  govern- 
ment which  introduced  the  bill  was  in  a  min- 
ority in  the  house  of  commons,  and  all  these 
safeguards  disappeared  in  committee.  The 
period  of  residence  was  reduced  to  one  year. 
The  second  vote  and  the  fancy  franchises  dis- 
appeared. After  a  long  battle  over  the 
"compound  householder,"  the  man  whose 
rates  are  paid  for  him  by  his  landlord,  com- 
pounding was  abolished,  and  all  householders 
were  to  be  rated  in  person.  But  this  was 
found  so  inconvenient  that,  two  years  later, 
compounding  was  restored,  and  personal 
payment  of  rates  ceased  to  be  a  necessary 
qualification  for  being  registered  as  a  voter. 
Lastly,  £10  lodgers  were  admitted  to  the 
vote.  Thus  the  measure  was  completely 
transformed,  and  it  has  been  estimated  that 
the  number  of  persons  enfranchised  was 
increased  from  about  100,000  to  about  two 
millions.  These  were  the  changes  made  by 
the  Act  of  1867  in  the  borough  franchise. 
Those  which  it  made  in  the  county  franchise 
were  less  important.  It  reduced  the  £10 
qualification  for  copyholders  and  leaseholders 
to  £5.  And  it  added  a  £12  rateable  occupa- 
tion franchise  which  practically  took  the 
place  of  the  £50  rental  franchise. 

The  Act  of  1867  enfranchised  the  urban 
working  man  as  the  Act  of  1832  had  en- 
franchised the  mainly  urban  middle  class. 
Jts  effects  made  themselves  apparent,  spe- 


56  PAREIAMENT 

cially  in  the  changed  attitude  of  the  legisla- 
ture towards  trade  unions,  and  generally  in 
the  great  outburst  of  legislative  activity  dur- 
ing Gladstone's  first  ministry,  a  period  as 
fertile  in  legislation  as  the  period  immedi- 
ately preceding  1867  had  been  barren. 

Among  the  Acts  passed  during  that  ministry 
was  the  Ballot  Act,  1872,  which  introduced 
into  parliamentary  elections  the  system  of 
election  by  secret  ballot.  Vote  by  ballot 
had  been  one  of  the  famous  "  six  points  " 
of  the  Charter  of  1848,  and  proposals  for 
establishing  it  had  been  annually  introduced 
by  private  members,  but,  before  the  ministry 
of  1869,  had  never  been  supported  or  pro- 
posed by  the  government.  The  Act  was  not 
passed  without  a  long  and  hard  fight,  and 
then  only  as  an  experimental  measure,  to 
remain  in  force  for  one  year  only,  unless 
renewed.  It  has  been  renewed  annually  ever 
since  by  the  Expiring  Laws  Continuance  Act 
of  each  year,  but  curiously  enough,  though  it 
was  passed  nearly  forty  years  ago,  and  though 
its  lapse  would  throw  the  whole  law  of  elec- 
tions into  confusion,  it  has  not  even  yet  found 
its  place  on  the  statute  book  as  a  permanent 
measure.  It  put  an  end  to  the  venerable 
ceremonies  of  election  at  the  old  county 
court — a  very  different  institution  from  the 
modern  judicial  county  court — and,  incident- 
ally, by  altering  the  form  of  the  writ  for 
elections,  removed  the  distinction  between, 
knights,  citizens  and  burgesses,  grouping  them 
ail  as  "  members." 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE    57 

The  last  stage  in  the  history  of  the  reform 
of  parliamentary  elections  is  marked  by  the 
Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1884,  and 
by  the  Act  for  the  Redistribution  of  Seats 
which  followed  in  1885.  The  Act  of  1884  is 
in  form  clumsy  and  difficult  to  understand, 
but  its  effect  is  very  simple.  It  extended  to 
the  counties  the  household  and  lodger  fran- 
chise which  the  Act  of  1867  had  conferred 
on  the  boroughs.  It  also  remodelled  the 
occupation  qualification,  making  the  occupa- 
tion of  any  land  or  tenement  of  a  clear  yearly 
value  of  £10  a  qualification  both  in  boroughs 
and  in  counties.  And  it  created  a  new  form 
of  franchise,  called  the  service  franchise, 
intended  to  meet  some  cases  not  quite  cov- 
ered by  the  householder  or  the  lodger  vote. 
The  Act  increased  the  electorate  by  forty  per 
cent,  and  its  most  important  effect  was  the 
enfranchisement  of  the  rural  working  man. 
The  Act  of  1867  had  given  the  vote  to  the 
working  man  in  the  town.  The  Act  of  1884 
gave  it  to  the  working  man  in  the  country, 
the  agricultural  labourer  and  his  like.  It 
was  soon  afterwards  that  the  famous  "three 
acres  and  a  cow "  made  their  appearance 
on  the  parliamentary  scene. 

The  house  of  lords  refused  to  pass  the 
Act  of  1884  unless  it  was  accompanied  by  a 
measure  for  the  redistribution  of  seats.  The 
difference  between  the  two  houses  was  ended 
by  a  compromise,  in  pursuance  of  which,  after 
an  adjournment,  a  bill  was  brought  in  which 


58  PARLIAMENT 

became  law  as  the  Redistribution  of  Seats 
Act  of  1885.  The  terms  of  the  bill  were 
settled,  during  the  adjournment,  by  an  ar- 
rangement between  the  chiefs  of  the  two 
parties,  and  so  numerous  and  conflicting  were 
the  interests  involved  that  without  some  such 
agreement  the  bill  could  not  have  become 
law. 

The  Act  of  1885,  though  to  some  extent 
a  compromise,  was  drawn  on  bolder  lines 
than  its  predecessors,  and  was  based  on  the 
general  principle  of  equal  electoral  districts 
each  returning  a  single  member.  The  pro- 
portion of  one  seat  for  every  54,000  people 
was  roughly  taken  as  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation. In  order  to  adapt  this  principle 
to  the  then  existing  system  with  the  least 
possible  change,  boroughs  with  less  than 
15,000  inhabitants  were  disfranchised  alto- 
gether, and  became,  for  electoral  purposes, 
a  part  of  the  county  in  which  they  were  situ- 
ated. Boroughs  with  more  than  15,000  and 
less  than  50,000  inhabitants  were  allowed  to 
retain,  or  if  previously  unrepresented,  were 
given,  one  member  each:  those  with  more 
than  50,000  and  less  than  165,000,  two  mem- 
bers; those  above  165,000,  three  members, 
with  an  additional  member  for  every  50,000 
people  more.  The  same  general  principle 
was  followed  in  the  counties. 

The  boroughs  which  had  previously  elected 
two  members,  and  retained  that  number, 
remained  single  constituencies  for  the  election 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     59 

of  those  two  members.  Of  these  boroughs 
there  are  now  twenty-three,  and  these,  with 
the  city  of  London,  and  the  three  universities 
of  Oxford,  Cambridge  and  Dublin,  make  the 
twenty-seven  cases  of  constituencies  return- 
ing two  members.  All  the  other  constitu- 
encies are  single  member  districts,  a  result 
which  was  brought  about  by  a  partition  of 
the  counties,  of  boroughs  with  more  than 
two  members,  and  of  the  new  boroughs  with 
only  two  members  into  separate  electoral 
divisions,  each  with  its  own  distinctive 
name. 

The  total  number  of  members  was  in- 
creased from  658  to  670,  the  number  at  which 
it  now  stands. 

The  conditions  of  the  franchise,  and  the 
distribution  of  seats,  remain  to-day  as  they 
were  fixed  in  1884  and  1885.  As  to  the 
franchise,  there  is  still  a  property  qualifica- 
tion, but  the  most  important  franchises  are 
the  three  forms  of  occupation  franchise: 
(1)  the  qualification  of  the  occupier  of  a 
dwelling-house,  (2)  that  of  the  occupier  as 
lodger  of  lodgings  of  the  yearly  value  of  £10, 
(3)  that  of  the  occupier  of  any  land  or  tene- 
ment of  the  yearly  value  of  £10.  Such  a 
wide  meaning  has  been  given  to  the  expres- 
sion householder  that  it  is  often  difficult  for 
the  revising  barristers  and  the  courts  to  dis- 
tinguish between  householders  and  lodgers. 

Throughout  the  history  of  parliament  the 
right  to  vote  has  not  been  personal  but 


60  PARLIAMENT, 

has,  as  a  rule,  depended  on  the  ownership  or 
occupation  of  land  or  a  dwelling-place.  That 
principle,  with  some  exceptions,  such  as 
graduates  and  freemen,  still  remains.  As  to 
the  distribution  of  seats,  the  Act  of  1885 
made  a  departure  from  the  principle  of  local 
representation,  and  approximated  to  the 
principle  of  electoral  districts  with  equal 
population.  The  ancient  idea  of  the  repre- 
sentation of  communities,  or  organized  bodies 
of  men  has  thus  given  way  to  that  of  repre- 
sentation of  a  number  of  men,  grouped  only 
for  the  purpose  of  election. 

During  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  there 
has  been  no  change  in  the  electoral  system. 

For  a  general  extension  of  the  franchise, 
an  extension  from  the  occupation  franchise 
to  the  adult  franchise,  there  does  not  appear 
to  be  any  demand,  except  in  connection  with 
the  burning  question  of  the  franchise  for 
women.  We  are  already  much  nearer  man- 
hood suffrage  than  is  often  supposed.  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Lawrence  Lowell's  calculations 
the  ratio  of  electors  to  population  is  about 
one  in  six,  whereas  the  normal  proportion  of 
males  above  the  age  of  twenty-one,  making 
no  allowance  for  paupers,  criminals,  and  other 
persons  disqualified  by  the  law  of  most 
countries,  is  somewhat  less  than  one  in  four. 
But  the  demand  for  the  enfranchisement  of 
women  has  raised  the  general  question  as  to 
the  principle  on  which  the  franchise  should 
be  based,  for  the  advocates  of  the  women's 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE]  61 

vote  appear  to  be  divided  into  two  camps, 
those  who  would  grant  it  on  the  existing 
basis  of  property  or  occupation,  and  those 
who  fear  that  an  extension  on  these  terms 
would  unduly  increase  the  influence  of  prop- 
erty and  who  would  postpone  the  extension 
until  adult  suffrage  is  granted. 

For  alteration  of  the  distribution  of  seats, 
of  the  incidents  of  the  franchise,  and  of  the 
conduct  of  elections,  there  have  been  many 
demands  in  parliament  and  elsewhere. 

The  distribution  of  population  has  greatly 
changed  since  1885  and  a  strong  case  can  be 
made  out  for  a  better  adjustment  of  seats 
to  the  existing  distribution.  Mr.  Balfour's 
government,  on  the  eve  of  their  fall  in  1905, 
submitted  preliminary  resolutions  for  this 
purpose.  The  question  is  always  being  kept 
to  the  front,  under  the  catchword  phrase 
"  one  vote,  one  value,"  but  there  are  many 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  dealing  with  it, 
Ireland  in  particular.  On  the  mere  numeri- 
cal basis  Ireland  is  much  over  represented, 
but  Ireland  claims  to  be  treated  as  a  sepa- 
rate entity,  and  her  claims  cannot  be  dis- 
regarded. 

The  phrase  "  one  vote,  one  value,"  was 
invented  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  earlier 
demand  for  "  one  man,  one  vote."  Under  the 
ownership  and  occupation  franchises  a  man 
can  have  separate  votes  for  different  constitu- 
encies, and  may  have  more  than  one  vote 
for  residential  qualifications.  This  plural 


62  PARLIAMENT 

vote  is  at  variance  with  the  electoral  practice 
of  most  foreign  countries,  and  of  most  parts 
of  the  British  empire,  and  many  attempts 
have  been  made  to  abolish  it.  A  bill  for  this 
purpose  was  passed  by  the  commons  in  1906, 
but  was  thrown  out  by  the  lords. 

Among  other  changes  demanded  in  various 
quarters  are  the  reduction  of  the  expenses 
incident  to  elections,  by  holding  all  elections 
on  one  day,  and  by  simplifying  and  cheapen- 
ing the  machinery  of  registration;  the  modi- 
fication of  the  condition  of  residence  so  as  to 
prevent  the  disfranchisement  of  those  who 
are  compelled,  for  business  or  other  reasons, 
to  shift  their  residence;  and  the  removal  of 
the  disqualification  attached  to  the  receipt 
of  poor  law  relief,  a  disqualification  which 
has  already  been  mitigated  in  various  ways. 
The  payment  of  members,  and  of  the  official 
expenses  of  candidates,  was  promised  on  the 
eve  of  the  dissolution  of  the  short  parliament 
of  1910,  and  proposals  for  authorizing  it  were 
then  in  preparation. 

A  far  more  sweeping  change  would  be 
effected  if  the  advocates  of  proportional 
representation  had  their  way.  The  devising 
of  some  means  for  the  protection  of  minori- 
ties against  the  "tyranny  of  majorities"  has 
occupied  the  attention  of  political  thinkers 
for  many  generations,  and  John  Stuart  Mill, 
in  1867,  urged  in  parliament  the  adoption 
of  Thomas  Hare's  well-known  scheme,  but 
his  arguments  met  with  a  frigid  reception. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     63 

No  better  was  the  fortune  of  Mr.  Leonard 
Courtney,  now  Lord  Courtney  of  Penwith, 
in  1884.  The  three-cornered  constituencies 
which  were  introduced  in  1867  at  the  instance 
of  the  house  of  lords,  and  which  aimed  at 
securing  the  return  of  candidates  who  could 
secure  the  support  of  one-third  of  the  voters 
in  their  constituency,  perished  in  1885,  and 
the  Act  of  that  year  established  the  general 
principle  of  single-member  constituencies. 
The  cumulative  vote  for  English  school 
boards,  introduced  in  1870,  went  with  the 
school  boards  themselves  in  1902.  The  ex- 
perience of  Belgium,  and  the  experiments 
which  are  being  tried  in  Tasmania,  South 
Africa  and  elsewhere,  have  revived  interest  in 
the  question,  and  the  whole  subject  was  care- 
fully considered  by  a  royal  commission  which 
reported  in  1910.  Proposals  for  proportional 
representation  have  obtained  the  support  of 
many  men  of  eminence  and  ability,  but  do 
not  appear  to  have  yet  aroused  any  general 
interest  either  in  parliament  or  in  the 
country. 

A  word  or  two  may  be  said  in  conclusion 
on  the  qualifications  of  members  as  distin- 
guished from  voters.  A  residential  qualifi- 
cation was  imposed  in  the  fifteenth  century 
but  soon  became  obsolete,  and  was  formally 
repealed,  as  such,  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
By  the  legislation  of  that  century  a  property 
qualification  was  required,  but  it  was  easily 
evaded,  and  was  abolished  by  a  private 


64  PARLIAMENT 

member's  Act  in  1858.  No  test  is  required 
to  make  the  entry  of  poor  men  into  parlia- 
ment difficult.  Oaths  of  allegiance  and  oaths 
imposing  religious  tests  in  various  forms  and 
degrees  of  stringency  were  introduced  in  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries;  and 
their  modification  and  abolition,  and  the 
steps  by  which  Roman  Catholics,  Jews  and 
others,  obtained  admission  into  the  house  of 
commons,  form  an  interesting  chapter  in  par- 
liamentary history.  All  that  is  now  required 
is  a  very  simple  oath  or  affirmation  of  alle- 
giance, in  a  form  compatible  with  any  variety 
or  shade  of  religious  belief  or  unbelief. 

The  existing  constitution  of  the  house  of 
commons  may  be  summed  up  as  follows. 

The  house  consists  of  670  members,  465 
for  England,  30  for  Wales,  72  for  Scotland, 
and  103  for  Ireland.  Single  member  con- 
stituencies are  the  general  rule,  but  in  a  few 
cases  one  constituency  returns  two  members. 
Every  male  householder  who  has  resided  in 
his  constituency  for  a  year,  and  has  paid  or 
compounded  for  his  rates,  is  entitled  to  be 
registered,  and,  when  registered,  to  vote  as 
a  parliamentary  elector  for  that  constituency. 
This  is  the  most  general  franchise,  but  there 
are  others,  including  the  occupation  of  lodg- 
ings rented  at  £10  a  year,  and  the  ownership 
or  occupation  of  lands  or  buildings  of  a  cer- 
tain value.  Some  of  the  universities  return 
members,  elected  by  their  graduates.  Women 
are  not  entitled  to  the  parliamentary  fran- 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE    65 

chise.  Subject  to  disqualifications  arising 
from  peerage,  holding  of  office,  bankruptcy, 
and  conviction  of  treason  or  felony,  every 
British  subject  who  is  of  full  age  is  eligible  to 
the  house  of  commons.  A  peer  of  the  United 
Kingdom  or  of  Scotland  is  not  eligible,  but  a 
peer  of  Ireland,  unless  he  be  a  representative 
peer,  is  eligible  for  any  but  an  Irish  seat.  For 
instance,  Lord  Palmerston  was  an  Irish  peer. 
Where  a  member  of  the  house  of  commons  is 
described  as  a  lord,  he  is  either  an  Irish  peer, 
or,  more  frequently,  a  commoner  holding  a 
courtesy  title  as  son  of  a  peer. 

The  evidence  of  election  is  the  return  sent 
to  the  crown  office  by  the  returning  officer 
at  the  election.  If  the  validity  of  an  election 
is  disputed,  the  question  is  tried  and  decided 
by  election  judges  appointed  by,  and  from 
among  members  of,  the  high  court.  A  mem- 
ber must,  before  sitting  or  voting  as  such, 
except  in  the  election  of  Speaker,  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance,  or  make  an  affirmation 
to  the  same  effect. 

About  disqualification  by  office  something 
more  must  be  said.  After  the  restoration 
of  Charles  II,  and  indeed  until  the  end  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  there  was  much 
jealousy  of  the  presence  in  parliament  of  per- 
sons holding  office  under  the  king.  It  was 
feared  that,  through  his  officers,  the  king 
would  be  able  to  exercise  undue  influence 
over  parliamentary  proceedings,  and  an  Act 
was  passed  which  made  the  holding  of  all 


66  PARLIAMENT 

such  offices  incompatible  with  a  seat  in  the 
house  of  commons.  Fortunately  this  Act 
was  repealed  before  it  came  into  operation; 
if  it  had  remained  law  it  would  have  made 
our  present  system  of  government  impossible. 
The  present  state  of  the  law  depends  on  a 
series  of  complicated  enactments,  but  its 
general  effect  is  that  some  offices  cannot  be 
held  by  a  member  of  the  house  of  commons, 
whilst  in  other  cases  acceptance  of  the  office 
by  a  member  vacates  his  seat,  and  compels 
him  to  seek  re-election,  but,  if  he  is  re-elected, 
he  can  hold  both  the  office  and  the  seat  to- 
gether. The  offices  which  cannot  be  held 
by  a  member  of  parliament  include  those  of 
the  higher  judges,  and  those  of  the  members 
of  what  is  known  as  the  permanent  civil 
service,  who  retain  their  posts  independently 
of  any  change  in  the  government.  The  offices 
which  involve  re-election  are  the  so-called 
political  offices  which  are  held  by  the  minis- 
ters of  the  crown,  who  represent  in  the  house 
the  government  of  the  day,  and  who  resign 
their  offices  when  there  is  a  change  of  govern- 
ment owing  to  another  party  coming  into 
power.  Under  the  provisions  of  various  stat- 
utes an  exchange  of  one  of  these  offices  for 
another  is  an  exception  from  the  rule  which 
vacates  a  member's  seat  when  he  accepts  the 
office  of  a  minister.  Thus  if  the  president  of 
the  board  of  trade  become  home  secretary  he 
does  not  thereby  vacate  his  seat  and  require 
re-election.  Nor  does  appointment  to  the 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE     67 

post  of  parliamentary  under-secretary  to  a 
secretary  of  State,  or  to  such  departments 
as  the  board  of  admiralty,  board  of  trade,  or 
Local  Government  Board  vacate  a  seat,  the 
technical  reason  being  that  these  appoint- 
ments are  made,  not  by  the  king  himself, 
but  by  the  minister  under  whom  the  parlia- 
mentary secretary  serves,  and  therefore  the 
posts  are  not  "offices  under  the  Crown" 
within  the  meaning  of  the  disqualifying 
statutes. 

A  member  cannot  resign  his  seat,  but,  if  he 
wishes  to  retire  from  parliament,  he  takes 
advantage  of  these  disqualifying  statutes  by 
asking  for  appointment  to  some  old  office  to 
which  nominal  duties  and  emoluments  are 
attached,  and  which  he  resigns  as  soon  as  his 
acceptance  of  it  has  made  his  seat  vacant. 
The  office  usually  selected  for  this  purpose 
is  that  of  steward  or  bailiff  of  His  Majesty's 
three  Chiltern  Hundreds  of  Stoke,  Desbor- 
ough  and  Burnham,  in  the  county  of  Bucks. 
Acceptance  of  the  Chiltern  Hundreds  is  the 
door  by  which  a  member  escapes  when  he 
wishes  to  retire  from  parliament  before  a 
general  election. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   MAKING   OF   LAWS 

THE  business  of  the  house  of  commons  may 
be  divided  into  three  branches,  legislative, 
financial,  critical.  The  house  makes  laws 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  house  of  lords  and 
the  king.  It  grants  money  for  the  public 
service,  specifies  the  purposes  to  which  that 
money  is  to  be  appropriated,  imposes  taxes 
and  authorizes  loans.  By  means  of  questions 
and  discussions,  it  criticizes  and  controls  the 
action  of  the  king's  ministers,  and  of  the 
executive  government  of  which  they  are  at 
the  head. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  work  of  making  laws. 
The  law  of  this  country  is  commonly  classified 
as  falling  under  two  heads,  the  common  law 
and  the  statute  law.  The  common  law  may 
for  present  purposes  be  described  as  the  law 
which  is  based  on  custom  and  usage  as  de- 
clared and  expounded  by  judges.  The  statute 
law  is  the  law  which  is  made  by  the  legislature 
and  is  to  be  found  in  Acts  of  Parliament,  or, 
as  they  are  also  called,  the  statutes  of  the 
realm.  There  are  other  distinctions  and  re- 
finements with  which  we  need  not  concern 
68 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  69 

ourselves  here.  It  is  with  the  making  of  stat- 
ute law  that  parliament  is  concerned.  The 
gradual  change  in  the  form  of  parliamentary 
legislation,  by  which  legislation  on  petition 
was  transformed  into  legislation  by  bill,  has 
been  described  in  an  earlier  chapter. 

In  dealing  with  the  work  of  legislation,  as 
conducted  under  modern  rules  of  procedure, 
it  may  be  convenient  to  begin  by  describing, 
very  briefly,  the  stages  through  which  a  bill, 
that  is,  a  project  of  law,  or  a  proposed  law, 
must  pass  before  it  obtains  the  king's  assent, 
becomes  an  Act  of  Parliament,  and  acquires 
the  force  of  law.  We  will  suppose  that  it  is 
a  public  bill,  that  is,  a  bill  for  the  alteration 
of  the  general  law,  as  distinguished  from  a 
private  bill,  the  nature  of  which  will  be  ex- 
plained later  on,  and  that  it  makes  its  start 
in  the  house  of  commons,  not  in  the  house  of 
lords. 

Any  member  of  the  house  of  commons  may 
introduce  a  bill  into  that  house,  or  move  the 
house  for  leave  to  introduce  it.  Until  recently 
this  motion  for  leave,  which  was  rarely  re- 
fused, was  the  preliminary  step  for  introduc- 
tion of  a  bill,  and  the  old  practice  is  still 
usually  followed  in  the  case  of  the  more  impor- 
tant measures  introduced  by  the  government, 
and  sometimes  in  the  case  of  bills  introduced 
by  private  members.  But,  under  an  altera- 
tion of  rules  made  in  1902,  any  member  may 
now  present  a  bill,  after  giving  formal  notice 
of  his  intention  to  do  so.  If  he  has  obtained 


70  PARLIAMENT 

the  requisite  leave,  or  given  the  requisite 
notice,  the  Speaker,  at  the  proper  time,  calls 
his  name,  and  thus  invites  him  to  present  his 
bill.  He  does  so  by  bringing  to  the  table  of 
the  house,  where  the  clerks  sit,  a  document 
which  is  supposed  to  be  his  bill,  but  which  is 
really  a  "dummy"  or  sheet  of  paper,  supplied 
to  him  at  the  public  bill  office,  and  containing 
the  title  of  the  bill,  the  member's  name,  and 
the  names  of  any  other  members  who  wish 
to  appear  as  supporting  him  or  joining  with 
him  in  presenting  the  bill.  The  clerk  at  the 
table  reads  out  the  title  of  the  bill,  and  it  is 
then  supposed  to  have  been  read  a  first  time. 
A  formal  order  is  made  for  printing  it,  and  a 
day  is  fixed  for  its  second  reading.  There 
was  a  time  when  these  so-called  "readings" 
were  realities.  The  Speaker  would  explain 
from  notes  or  a  "breviate"  supplied  to  him 
the  general  nature  of  the  proposals  to  be 
brought  before  the  house,  and  the  bill  itself 
would  probably  be  read  in  full,  at  later 
stages,  by.  the  clerk  at  the  table  of  the  house. 
Nowadays  the  "readings"  are  merely  stages 
in  the  progress  of  a  bill  through  the  house. 
The  first  reading  is  a  mere  formality.  When 
the  question  is  put  that  the  bill  be  read 
a  second  time  an  opportunity  is  afforded 
for  discussing  its  general  principles  as  dis- 
tinguished from  its  details.  If  the  house 
signifies  its  approval  of  these  principles  the 
bill  is  supposed  to  be  read  a  second  time,  and 
then  follows  what  is  called  the  committee 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  71 

stage.  Under  the  present  rules,  when  a  bill 
has  been  read  a  second  time  it  is  sent  to  one 
of  the  standing  committees  on  bills,  unless 
it  falls  under  certain  exceptions,  or  the  house 
makes  an  order  that  it  be  considered  by  some 
other  kind  of  committee. 

There  are  four  of  these  standing  commit- 
tees. One  of  them  is  for  the  consideration  of 
public  bills  relating  exclusively  to  Scotland, 
and  must  include  all  the  members  represent- 
ing Scottish  constituencies.  The  other  three 
are  constituted  by  the  committee  of  selection, 
which  is  one  of  the  committees  appointed  for 
each  session  by  the  house,  and  the  same 
committee  of  selection  also  reinforces  the 
committee  on  Scottish  bills  by  adding  to  it 
some  other  members.  The  minimum  num- 
ber of  each  standing  committee  is  sixty,  and 
the  quorum  for  business  is  twenty. 

If  a  bill  does  not  go  to  a  standing  com- 
mittee, it  usually  goes  to  what  is  called  a 
committee  of  the  whole  house,  but  is  really 
the  house  itself,  transacting  its  business  in  a 
less  formal  manner,  with  the  Speaker's  chair 
vacant,  and  sitting  under  the  presidency  of  a 
chairman,  who  occupies  the  chair  at  the  table 
which  is  occupied  by  the  clerk  of  the  house 
when  the  Speaker  is  present.  These  so-called 
committees  of  the  whole  house,  correspond- 
ing to  what  are  called  "committees  of  the 
whole"  in  the  United  States,  came  into  exist- 
ence at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  The  more  important  bills  were 


72  PARLIAMENT 

then  sent  to  large  committees,  and  as  it  was 
difficult  to  obtain  attendance  at  these  com- 
mittees, orders  were  often  made  that  any 
member  who  wished  might  attend.  These 
orders  grew  into  a  general  practice.  It  is 
said  also  that  the  house  of  that  day  did  not 
place  complete  confidence  in  its  Speaker, 
whom  it  regarded  as  the  agent  and  nominee 
of  the  king,  and  that  it  preferred  to  conduct 
its  deliberations  in  his  absence.  So  it  came 
to  pass  that  what  is  called  a  committee  of 
the  whole  house  is  the  same  body  of  persons 
as  the  house  itself,  sitting  in  the  same  place, 
with  slightly  different  formalities  and  pro- 
cedure. 

Before  a  recent  change  in  the  rules,  all  bills 
went  after  second  reading  to  a  committee  of 
the  whole  house,  unless  the  house  ordered 
otherwise.  Now  the  presumption  is  reversed, 
and  all  bills,  except  a  special  class,  go  to  a 
standing  committee  unless  the  house  orders 
otherwise.  But  the  Finance  Bill  and  other 
money  bills  of  the  year  must  go  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  house,  and  opposition  is 
always  made  when  it  is  proposed  to  send  to  a 
standing  committee  any  of  the  more  impor- 
tant bills  or  any  very  controversial  bill,  for, ! 
notwithstanding  the  recent  change  of  rules, ' 
many  members  hold  that  every  member  of 
the  house  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  of 
taking  part  in  the  discussion  of  the  detailed 
provisions  of  these  bills. 

When  a  bill  is  before  a  standing  committee 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  73 

or  a  committee  of  the  whole  house,  the 
committee  goes  through  the  bill,  clause  by 
clause,  discussing  any  amendments  that  may 
be  proposed,  determining  as  to  each  clause, 
how,  if  at  all,  it  should  be  amended,  and 
whether  in  its  original  or  amended  form  it 
should  stand  part  of  the  bill,  and  then 
whether  any  new  clauses  should  be  added. 
In  the  case  of  important  and  controversial 
bills  these  debates  may  last  over  many  days 
or  weeks,  and  the  notices  of  amendments  to 
be  proposed  fill  many  pages  of  the  parlia- 
mentary notice  papers.  When  the  discussion 
is  finished,  and  the  whole  bill  has  been  gone 
through,  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
makes  a  simple  report  to  the  Speaker,  merely 
stating  whether  the  bill  has  been  amended 
or  not. 

In  some  cases  a  bill,  instead  of  going  to  a 
standing  committee  or  to  a  committee  of  the 
whole  house,  is  sent  to  a  small  select  commit-  ; 
tee,  or  to  a  joint  committee  of  both  houses,  j 
These  cases  are  comparatively  rare,  and  the 
reason  for  adopting  this  course  usually  is  that 
it  is  desired  to  summon  witnesses  and  take 
evidence  as  to  the  expediency  and  effect  of 
the  provisions  of  the  bill.  Committees  of 
this  kind  usually  make  special  reports,  stat- 
ing then*  reasons  and  conclusions,  but  bills 
considered  by  them  have  to  be  considered 
subsequently  by  a  committee  of  the  whole 
house. 

After  the  committee  stage  follows  the  re- 


74  PARLIAMENT 

port  stage.  The  house,  sitting  formally  with 
the  Speaker  in  the  chair,  considers  the  bill  as 
reported  to  it  by  the  committee,  and  dis- 
cusses and  determines  whether  any  further 
alterations  or  additions  should  be  made. 

The  final  stage  in  the  house  of  commons  is 
the  third  reading.  At  this  stage  only  formal 
or  verbal  alterations  are  allowed.  What  the 
house  does  is  to  consider  the  bill  as  a  whole, 
and  determine  whether,  in  its  opinion,  the 
measure  ought  or  ought  not  to  become 
law. 

When  a  bill  has  passed  through  all  its 
stages  in  the  house  of  commons  it  is  sent  up 
with  a  message  to  the  house  of  lords,  to  pass 
through  its  several  stages  there,  stages  which 
correspond,  with  some  differences  of  detail, 
to  those  in  the  house  of  commons.  The  lords 
may  reject  the  bill  or  may  amend  it,  but,  as 
will  be  explained  hereafter,  they  have  no 
power  to  amend  a  finance  or  other  money  bill. 
If  the  lords  amend  a  bill  they  send  it  back  to 
the  commons  with  a  message  requesting  the 
concurrence  of  the  commons  in  their  amend- 
ments. Should  the  two  houses  differ,  in- 
formal negotiations  take  place  between  the 
friends  and  the  opponents  or  critics  of  the 
bill,  and  amendments  and  counter  amend- 
ments may  pass  to  and  fro  between  the  two 
houses  until  an  agreement  is  arrived  at.  But 
if  no  agreement  can  be  arranged,  the  bill 
drops,  that  is  to  say,  fails  to  become  law,  for 
a  bill  cannot  be  presented  for  the  royal  as- 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  75 

sent  until  the  concurrence  of  both  houses  has 
been  obtained.  The  life  of  a  bill  is  for  one 
session  only.  If  a  bill  is  not  either  passed  or 
withdrawn  by  its  promoters  before  the  end 
of  the  session,  it  lapses  or  becomes  a  dead 
letter,  and  if  the  proposals  are  to  be  pro- 
ceeded with  in  the  next  or  a  subsequent  ses- 
sion, a  new  bill  must  be  introduced. 

When  a  bill  has  been  passed  by  both  houses 
the  final  stage  is  the  royal  assent.  The 
assent  is  given  periodically  to  batches  of  bills, 
as  they  are  passed,  the  largest  batch  being 
usually  at  the  end  of  the  session.  The  cere- 
monial observed  dates  fromPlantagenet  times, 
and  takes  place  in  the  house  of  lords.  The 
king  is  represented  by  lords  commissioners, 
who  sit  in  front  of  the  throne,  on  a  row  of 
armchairs,  arrayed  in  scarlet  robes  and  little 
cocked  hats.  Sometimes  a  few  peers  in 
ordinary  clothes  are  to  be  seen  on  the  benches, 
sometimes  there  are  none.  At  the  bar  of  the 
house  stands  the  Speaker  of  the  house  of 
commons,  who  has  been  summoned  from  that 
house.  Behind  him  stand  such  members  of 
the  house  of  commons  as  have  followed  him 
through  the  lobbies.  A  clerk  of  the  house  of 
lords  reads  out,  in  a  sonorous  voice,  the 
commission  which  authorizes  the  assent  to  be 
given.  The  clerk  of  the  crown  at  one  side  of 
the  table  reads  out  the  title  of  each  bill. 
The  clerk  of  the  parliaments  on  the  other  side, 
making  profound  obeisances,  pronounces  the 
Norman-French  formula  by  which  the  king's 


76  PARLIAMENT 

assent  is  signified;  "Little  Peddlington  Elec- 
tricity Supply  Act.  Le  Roy  le  veult."  Be- 
tween the  two  voices  six  centuries  lie. 

Since  the  time  of  Queen  Anne  no  English 
king  or  queen  has  ever  refused  assent  to  a  bill. 
For,  under  the  modern  constitutional  rule, 
the  king  must,  in  matters  such  as  this,  act  in 
accordance  with  the  advice  of  his  ministers, 
and  his  ministers  can  practically  prevent  any 
bills  which,  in  their  opinion,  ought  not  to 
become  law  from  reaching  the  stage  at  which 
the  king's  assent  is  required. 

A  bill  cannot  be  introduced  except  by  a 
member  of  parliament,  and,  as  has  been  seen, 
any  member  can  introduce  a  bill.  When  a 
minister  of  the  crown  introduces  a  bill,  he 
does  so,  not  as  a  minister,  but  as  a  member  of 
the  house  to  which  he  belongs.  There  is  no 
difference  in  form  between  a  government  bill 
and  a  private  member's  bill,  between  a  bill 
introduced  by  a  member  of  the  government 
and  a  bill  introduced  by  any  other  member. 
But  the  chances  of  the  bill  being  passed  into 
law  are  very  different  in  the  two  cases.  A 
private  member's  bill  has  little  chance  of 
becoming  law  unless  it  relates  to  some  com- 
paratively unimportant  or  uncontroversial 
subject.  When  a  private  member  undertakes 
legislation  on  his  own  account  he  finds  himself 
handicapped  in  many  ways.  He  has  difficulty 
in  obtaining  expert  assistance  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  his  bill.  He  has  difficulty  in  finding 
parliamentary  time  for  its  discussion.  Even 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  77 

if  he  does  find  the  time,  he  has  difficulty  in 
commanding  and  organizing  forces  sufficient 
to  overcome  parliamentary  opposition.  In 
all  these  respects  the  government,  as  com- 
pared with  the  private  member,  enjoys  great 
advantages.  It  has  at  its  disposal  a  staff  of 
experts  for  the  preparation  of  bills,  and  for 
the  collecting  and  sifting  of  information  on  all 
points  relating  to  the  subject-matter  of  the 
bill.  It  has  also  command  of  parliamentary 
time.  During  the  earlier  part  of  each  session, 
Fridays  are  set  apart  for  private  members' 
bills,  and  members  who  wish  to  introduce 
bills  draw  lots  for  precedenceon  those  Fridays. 
Unless  a  private  member's  bill  is  so  simple 
and  uncontroversial  as  to  meet  with  no 
opposition  from  any  quarter,  and  so  manages 
to  slip  through  by  consent,  his  only  chance  of 
getting  it  read  a  second  time  depends  on  his 
securing  an  early  place  on  some  Friday;  and 
unless  that  Friday  falls  early  in  the  session, 
the  probability  of  the  bill  making  further 
progress  is  small.  But  the  government  have 
at  their  disposal  the  greater  part  of  the  time 
available  for  parliamentary  discussions,  and 
can  use  all  the  machinery  of  party  organiza- 
tion and  party  discipline  for  pushing  their 
measures  through.  Hence  it  is  not  a  matter 
for  surprise  that,  although  private  members' 
bills  largely  outnumber  government  bills,  the 
proportion  of  them  which  become  law  is,  by 
comparison,  extremely  small. 

It  is  on  the  government,  then,  that  by  far 


78  PARLIAMENT 

the  greatest  share  of  responsibility  for  parlia- 
mentary legislation  devolves;  it  is  the  govern- 
ment that  prepares,  introduces,  and  steers 
through  parliament  all  the  more  important 
legislative  proposals  which  find  their  place  as 
laws  on  the  statute  book.  To  say  that  at 
present  the  cabinet  legislates  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  parliament  would,  as  has  been 
remarked  by  a  distinguished  American  writer, 
hardly  be  an  exaggeration.  The  private 
member  often  complains  that  his  share  in  the 
work  of  legislation  has  been  unduly  curtailed. 
He  may  perhaps  derive  some  consolation 
from  the  reflection  that  modern  practice  gives 
effect,  though  by  different  methods,  to  the  old 
parliamentary  formula  of  enactment.  Ac- 
cording to  that  formula  it  is  the  king  who 
enacts  laws  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
parliament.  According  to  modern  practice  it 
is  the  king's  ministers  that  initiate  and  are 
mainly  responsible  for  shaping  all  the  more 
important  measures  of  legislation.  The  min- 
istry, who  represent  the  executive  govern- 
ment, cannot,  as  such,  determine  whether  any 
legislative  measure  should  or  should  not  be 
introduced,  or  should  or  should  not  be  passed, 
but  they  have,  through  their  control  over  the 
business  arrangements  of  the  house  of  com- 
mons, much  to  say  as  to  the  chances  of  any 
given  measure  becoming  law.  And  though 
they  cannot  dictate  the  ultimate  form  which  a 
bill  is  to  assume,  they  can,  by  suggestion  or 
persuasion,  do  much  to  determine  that  form. 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  79 

The  possible  course  of  parliamentary  legis- 
lation may  be  illustrated  by  taking  some 
imaginary  government  measure  and  tracing 
its  progress  from  its  earliest  stage  to  its  con- 
clusion. Suppose  that  the  cabinet,  at  one  of 
their  November  meetings,  decide  to  introduce 
a  comprehensive  measure  of  poor  law  reform, 
and  to  make  it  a  leading  feature  in  their 
legislative  programme  for  the  next  year.  The 
first  step  will  be  to  give  instructions  to  the 
government  draftsman  to  prepare  a  bill. 
There  are  two  government  draftsmen,  bearing 
the  official  title  of  parliamentary  counsel. 
They  are  attached  to  the  treasury,  as  the 
central  department  of  the  government,  and 
all  their  instructions  come  to  them  through 
the  treasury.  These  instructions  are  usually 
very  general  in  the  first  instance,  and  it  is  by 
means  of  personal  conferences  and  discussions 
that  the  scheme  of  the  bill  is  gradually  worked 
out.  The  measure  may  be  referred  to  a 
committee  of  the  cabinet,  who  will  assist  the 
minister  in  charge  of  the  bill  in  considering 
questions  of  principle.  The  first  crude  sketch 
will  be  gradually  elaborated.  The  draftsman 
will  have  daily  conferences  with  the  minister, 
or  with  the  permanent  head  of  the  depart- 
ment concerned,  or  with  both.  There  will  be 
interviews  and  correspondence  with  experts 
in  various  branches  of  the  subject  with  which 
the  measure  deals.  A  mass  of  blue  books 
will  have  to  be  grappled  with.  Notes  will 
be  written  tracing  the  history  of  previous 


80  PARLIAMENT, 

legislation  or  attempted  legislation,  explaining 
the  reasons  for  and  effect  of  the  several 
proposals  embodied  in  the  draft  bill,  and 
these  will  soon  grow  into  a  formidable  litera- 
ture of  commentaries.  Thus  the  measure 
will  probably  have  gone  through  a  long 
period  of  gestation  before  its  introduction 
into  parliament. 

Information  and  opinions  on  different 
points  will  have  been  confidentially  obtained 
from  various  quarters;  the  provisions  of  the 
measure  will  have  assumed  many  varying 
forms,  and  the  alternatives  will  have  been 
carefully  discussed  and  compared.  Yet,  in 
spite  of  these  precautions,  as  soon  as  the 
measure  has  been  printed  and  circulated, 
swarms  of  amendments  will  begin  to  settle 
down  on  the  notice  paper  like  clouds  of 
mosquitoes.  The  minister  in  charge  of  the 
bill  has  to  scrutinize  all  these,  with  the  help 
of  his  permanent  staff  and  of  the  draftsman, 
to  formulate  reasons  for  their  acceptance  or 
rejection,  and  to  prepare  replies  to,  or  amend- 
ments for  meeting,  the  numerous  points 
raised  since  the  introduction  of  the  bill.  Let- 
ters and  articles  appear  in  the  newspapers. 
Questions  are  asked  in  the  house.  Corres- 
pondence pours  in  from  all  parts  of  the  coun- 
try. The  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  par- 
ish of  Ockley-cum-Withypool  must  surely 
have  been  overlooked  by  the  framers  of  the 
bill.  There  is  a  local  Act  which  will  require 
consideration.  Above  all,  there  are  the 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  81 

vested  interests.  Journalists  may  write  elo- 
quent leaders,  members  of  parliament  may 
make  sonorous  speeches  about  the  effect 
which  the  measure  will  have  in  promoting  the 
welfare  or  undermining  the  institutions  of 
the  country.  But  to  the  parish  beadle  of 
Little  Peddlington  the  question  of  supreme 
importance  is  how  it  will  affect  his  emolu- 
ments, existing  and  prospective.  It  is  with 
reference  to  them  that  he  studies  the  par- 
liamentary debates,  indites  missives  to  his 
representative,  and  organizes  deputations  to 
departments.  Every  member  of  parliament 
knows  this  beadle,  under  various  names. 

Questions  of  this  kind  occupy  all  the  work- 
ing time  during  the  interval  between  the 
second  reading  and  committee,  and  during 
the  progress  of  the  committee  stage.  Inside 
the  house  the  minister  is  battling  with  amend- 
ments, some  from  enemies  anxious  to  make  the 
bill  unworkable  or  to  reduce  its  operations  to 
a  minimum,  others  from  indiscreet  friends. 
Amendments  are  often  framed  hastily,  with- 
out reference  to  grammar,  logic,  consistency, 
or  intelligibility.  They  are  apt  to  be  crowded 
in  at  the  beginning  of  each  clause  or  sentence, 
with  the  view  of  obtaining  precedence  in  dis- 
cussion. The  language  of  a  law  ought  to  be 
precise,  accurate,  and  consistent,  but  the  at- 
mosphere of  a  crowded  or  heated  assembly  is 
not  conducive  to  nicety  or  accuracy  of  expres- 
sion. Decisions  often  have  to  be  taken  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment,  and  in  view  of  the  pos- 


82  PARLIAMENT 

sibility  of  a  snap  division.  At  last  the 
amendments  are  cleared  off  the  paper;  the 
new  clauses,  often  raising  the  same  questions, 
are  disposed  of;  and  the  much-buffeted  craft, 
with  tattered  sails,  the  deck  encumbered  with 
wreckage,  and  with  several  ugly  leaks  in  her 
hold,  labours  heavily  into  a  temporary  har- 
bour of  refuge.  There  is  a  short  interval  for 
the  necessary  repairs,  and  then  the  struggle 
begins  again  at  the  report  stage.  There  may 
or  may  not  be  a  sufficient  opportunity  for 
making  such  formal  amendments  as  are 
necessary  to  make  the  measure  decently 
consistent  and  intelligible.  If  not,  they  must 
be  left  for  the  house  of  lords. 

This  is  no  unfair  description  of  the  methods 
of  parliamentary  legislation,  and  it  is  no  mar- 
vel that  both  the  methods  and  the  results  have 
been  severely  criticized.  But  the  countervail- 
ing considerations  have  to  be  borne  in  mind. 

Popular  legislation  has  its  defects,  but  it  has 
its  advantages  also,  and  in  the  English  view 
the  advantages  preponderate.  It  is  true  that 
the  provisions  of  a  bill  as  introduced  into 
parliament  ought  to  be,  and  often  are,  per- 
spicuous, consistent,  orderly,  and  luminous, 
and  that  their  perspicuity  is  often  marred, 
the  principle  of  their  arrangement  upset, 
their  consistency  disturbed,  by  amendments 
in  committee.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
substantial  improvements  which  are  effected 
often  do  more  than  atone  for  any  deteriora- 
tion in  form. 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  83 

The  searching  ordeal  to  which  bills  are 
exposed  in  their  passage  through  parliament 
frequently  brings  out  defects  and  omissions 
against  which  the  most  skilful  draftsman 
could  not  be  expected  to  provide,  which  the 
most  omniscient  official  could  not  be  expected 
to  foresee. 

And  the  opportunities  which  the  existing 
procedure  and  practice  afford  for  the  avoid- 
ance of  ill-considered,  ill-drawn,  or  inconsist- 
ent amendments,  and  for  the  removal  or 
formal  defects,  are  greater  than  are  realized 
by  those  who  are  not  familiar  with  parlia- 
mentary habits. 

At  first  sight  nothing  would  seem  more 
preposterous  than  to  submit  a  complicated 
draft  for  criticism  and  correction  to  a  miscel- 
laneous assembly  of  670  persons.  But  if  the 
member  in  charge  of  a  bill  is  a  minister  with 
a  compact  and  strong  following  at  his  back, 
and  if  he  has  the  qualities  which  command  the 
confidence  and  respect  of  the  house,  he  can 
retain  control  over  both  the  form  and  the 
substance  of  his  bill  through  all  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  a  discussion  in  committee. 

It  is  true  that  the  qualities  required  for  the 
successful  steering  of  a  complicated  and 
controversial  bill  through  committee  are 
qualities  of  a  very  high  order.  They  include 
tact,  readiness,  resourcefulness,  firmness,  and, 
above  all,  patience  and  good  temper.  The 
slightest  appearance  of  dictation,  the  slightest 
loss  of  temper,  will  often  set  the  house  aflame. 


84  PARLIAMENT 

But  if  the  minister  can  be  conciliatory  with- 
out "wobbling,"  can  distinguish  between 
amendments  which  are  fatal  to  his  scheme 
and  those  which  are  not,  can  by  a  happy  and 
timely  suggestion  indicate  the  way  out  of  a 
confusing  discussion,  and  can  suppress  his 
own  impatience  until  it  is  shared  by  the  com- 
mittee, he  can,  without  going  to  a  division, 
often  persuade  his  critics  either  to  withdraw, 
or  to  modify,  or  to  postpone  their  amend- 
ments, or,  at  the  worst,  make  his  assent  to 
their  acceptance  subject  to  further  considera- 
tion at  a  later  stage  of  the  bill. 

Qualities  of  this  kind  are  not  rare  amongst 
English  statesmen,  and  are  developed  by 
parliamentary  training.  Those  who  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  attending  legislative 
discussions,  whether  in  committee  of  the 
whole  house  or  in  any  of  the  standing  com- 
mittees, cannot  fail  to  have  been  struck  by 
their  display,  and  to  have  been  also  impressed 
by  the  good  sense,  good  temper,  and  readi- 
ness to  adopt  compromises  and  accept  reason- 
able assurances  which  characterize  a  com- 
mittee, except  when  it  has  got  "out  of  hand." 

The  "report"  stage  of  a  bill  supplies  an 
opportunity  for  setting  right  things  which 
have  gone  wrong  in  committee,  and  amend- 
ments which  cannot  be  made  at  the  report 
stage  can  often  be  made  in  the  house  of  lords, 
which  thus  discharges  to  some  extent  the 
functions  of  a  revising  authority. 

The  foregoing  description  applies  to  public 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  85 

bill  legislation,  the  legislation  resulting  in  the 
Acts  of  Parliament  which  alter  the  general 
law  of  the  country.  Private  bill  legislation 
is  governed  by  different  rules,  and  follows  a 
different  course  of  procedure. 

The  object  of  a  private  bill  is,  not  to  alter 
the  general  law  of  the  country,  but  to  alter 
the  law  relating  to  some  particular  locality, 
or  to  confer  rights  on  or  relieve  from  liability 
some  particular  person  or  persons.  When 
private  bills  become  law  they  are  classified 
as  local  and  private  Acts,  and  the  table  of 
local  and  private  Acts,  which  is  to  be  found 
in  the  annual  volume  of  statutes,  indicates 
the  nature  of  the  subjects  with  which  they 
deal.  For  instance,  they  include  measures 
for  conferring  further  powers  on  particular 
local  authorities,  or  for  altering  their  con- 
stitution, and  for  constituting,  or  extending 
the  powers  of,  railway  companies,  gas  and 
electricity  companies,  water  companies,  and 
the  like. 

An  ordinary  railway  bill  may  be  treated  as 
presenting  the  type  of  a  private  bill.  The 
introduction  of  a  private  bill  must  be  preceded 
by  certain  notices  the  object  of  which  is  to 
supply  information  to  persons  whose  private 
interests  are  likely  to  be  affected  by  the  pro- 
posals of  the  bill,  such  as  persons  whose  land 
it  is  proposed  to  take  for  an  undertaking 
which  is  to  be  authorized.  In  many  cases 
plans  and  sections,  showing  the  nature  of  the 
work  proposed,  and  estimates  of  the  expendi- 


86  PARLIAMENT 

ture  proposed,  have  also  to  be  deposited  be- 
fore particular  dates,  and  in  particular  places 
specified  by  the  standing  orders  of  the  two 
houses  of  parliament.  Detailed  provision  for 
all  these  matters  is  made  by  the  standing 
orders,  and  there  are  officers  who  are  charged 
with  the  duty  of  seeing  that  the  requirements 
of  these  standing  orders  have  been  complied 
with  before  a  private  bill  is  introduced  into 
either  house.  If  these  requirements  have  been 
complied  with,  the  bill  may  be  presented  and 
read  a  first  time,  and  it  is  for  the  house  to  say, 
as  in  the  case  of  a  public  bill,  whether  it  shall 
be  read  a  second  time  or  not.  As  a  rule  the 
second  reading  of  a  private  bill  is  not  refused 
except  on  the  ground  that  it  raises  some 
question  of  general  principle  which  ought  to 
be  decided  before  the  bill  is  allowed  to  go 
further.  If  it  is  read  a  second  time  it  is 
referred  to  a  small  committee,  usually  of  four 
members.  Every  private  bill  has  a  preamble 
stating  the  reasons  for  which  recourse  to  this 
form  of  legislation  is  considered  expedient, 
and  the  first  business  of  the  committee  is  to 
consider  whether,  in  their  opinion,  the  pre- 
amble is  proved — in  other  words,  whether 
there  is  a  sufficient  case  for  legislation.  If  they 
are  satisfied  on  this  point  they  go  through 
the  clauses  of  the  bill,  make  such  amendments 
as  they  think  desirable,  and  report  the  bill 
to  the  house.  The  proceedings  of  the  com- 
mittee are  of  a  judicial  nature,  and,  both  on 
the  preamble,  and  on  the  clauses  and  the 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  87 

proposed  amendments,  they  hear  the  argu- 
ments of  counsel,  take  evidence  from  wit- 
nesses, and  consider  reports  from  public  de- 
partments. In  fact  their  work,  though  in  form 
legislative,  would  in  many  other  countries  be 
considered  administrative  and  would  be  dealt 
with,  on  administrative  principles,  by  some 
department  of  the  executive  government. 

When  a  private  bill  has  been  reported  by  a 
committee  to  the  house,  the  report  has  to  be 
considered  by  the  house,  and  the  bill  has  to 
be  read  a  third  time  and  passed,  as  in  the  case 
of  a  public  bill.  But  here  again,  opposition 
is  rare  except  on  some  grounds  of  general 
principle.  The  practice  and  usage  of  each 
house  of  parliament  is  to  consider  that  the 
questions  raised  by  private  bills  can  be  more 
satisfactorily  settled  by  a  small  special  com- 
mittee than  by  a  large  assembly. 

Private  bill  legislation  is  expensive.  The 
fees  payable  under  the  standing  orders  of 
each  house  are  high,  and  still  higher  are  the 
charges  of  parliamentary  counsel  and  parlia- 
mentary agents.  But  the  tendency  of  this 
legislation  is  to  decrease  in  volume  and  im- 
portance. General  Acts,  such  as  the  Public 
Health  Act  of  1875  and  its  successors,  have 
superseded  many  of  the  provisions  which  used 
to  be  inserted  in  special  Acts,  and  many  things 
which  used  to  require  the  authority  of  a 
special  Act  can  now  be  effected  by  means 
of  the  much  less  expensive  machinery  of  a 
provisional  order.  This  is  an  order  made  by 


88  PARLIAMENT 

some  department  of  the  government,  such  as 
the  Local  Government  Board,  or  the  Board 
of  Trade,  after  the  publication  of  local  notices 
and  the  holding  of  a  local  inquiry,  and  con- 
taining provisions  of  the  same  nature  as  those 
inserted  in  a  private  bill.  When  it  has  been 
made  by  the  department  it  requires  confirma- 
tion by  parliament.  For  the  purpose  of  ob- 
taining this  confirmation  a  minister  repre- 
senting the  department  concerned  introduces 
a  bill  confirming  the  order,  or  a  batch  of 
orders,  and  this  bill  goes  through  the  same 
stages  as  an  ordinary  private  bill.  Of  course 
it  may  be  opposed,  and  if  it  is  opposed  at 
the  committee  stage  much  expense  may  be 
incurred.  But  as  a  rule  the  preliminary  local 
inquiry  suffices  for  the  consideration  and  sat- 
isfaction of  objections,  and  the  great  majority 
of  provisional  order  confirmation  bills  pass 
through  parliament  without  opposition. 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  draw  the  line 
between  public  and  private  bills,  nor  is  it 
always  easy  to  determine,  as  a  matter  of 
legislative  discretion,  in  what  cases  it  is  ex- 
pedient to  allow  private  Acts  to  make  local 
modifications  of  the  general  law.  Much  use- 
ful general  legislation  has  been  preceded  and 
facilitated  by  Acts  which  have  enabled  ex- 
periments to  be  tried  locally.  But  it  is  ob- 
vious that  legislation  of  this  kind  requires 
careful  watching,  and  the  house  of  commons 
now  appoints  in  each  session  a  special  com- 
mittee, called  the  local  legislation  committee, 


THE  MAKING  OF  LAWS  89 

and  refers  to  it  all  private  bills  promoted  by 
municipal  or  other  local  authorities  by  which 
it  is  proposed  to  create  powers  relating  to 
police,  sanitary,  or  other  local  government 
regulations  in  conflict  with,  deviation  from, 
or  in  excess  of  the  provisions  of  the  general 
law. 


CHAPTER  IV 

FINANCE  AND   ADMINISTRATION 

Finance 

THE  earliest  function  of  parliament  was  to 
provide  money  for  the  use  of  the  State,  and 
this  is  still  the  most  indispensable  function 
of  the  house  of  commons. 

The  general  principles  which  govern  the 
financial  action  of  parliament  cannot  be 
stated  better  than  in  the  language,  often 
quoted,  of  Sir  Erskine  May. 

"The  crown,  acting  with  the  advice  of  its 
responsible  ministers,  being  the  executive 
power,  is  charged  with  the  management  of  all 
the  revenues  of  the  country,  and  with  all 
payments  for  the  public  service.  The  crown 
therefore,  in  the  first  instance,  makes  known 
to  the  commons  the  pecuniary  necessities  of 
the  government,  and  the  commons  grant  such 
aids  and  supplies  as  are  required  to  satisfy 
these  demands,  and  provide  by  taxes,  and  by 
the  appropriation  of  other  sources  of  the  pub- 
lic income,  the  ways  and  means  to  meet  the 
supplies  which  are  granted  to  them.  Thus  the 
crown  demands  money,  the  commons  grant 
it,  and  the  lords  assent  to  the  grant.  But 
90 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION  91 

the  commons  do  not  vote  money  unless  it  be 
required  by  the  crown;  nor  impose  or  aug- 
ment taxes  unless  the  taxation  be  necessary 
for  the  public  service,  as  declared  by  the 
crown  through  its  constitutional  advisers." 

These  principles  may  be  summed  up  hi  four 
leading  rules.  The  first  rule  regulates  the 
constitutional  relations  between  the  crown 
and  parliament  in  matters  of  finance.  The 
crown,  that  is  to  say,  the  king,  acting  through 
his  ministers,  who  constitute  the  executive 
government,  cannot  raise  money  by  taxation, 
borrowing  or  otherwise,  or  spend  money, 
without  the  authority  of  parliament. 

The  second  rule  regulates  the  relations 
between  the  two  houses  of  parliament.  The 
power  to  grant  money  in  parliament,  a  power 
which  includes  both  the  raising  of  money  by 
tax  or  loan  and  the  authorizing  of  expendi- 
ture, belongs  exclusively  to  the  house  of 
commons.  The  house  of  lords  assents  to, 
and  may  reject,  a  grant  of  money,  but  can- 
not initiate  or  alter  a  grant. 

The  third  rule  imposes  a  restriction  on  the 
power  of  parliament  to  authorize  expenditure. 
Parliament,  that  is  to  say  the  house  of  com- 
mons, cannot  vote  money  for  any  purpose 
whatsoever,  except  at  the  demand  and  upon 
the  responsibility  of  ministers  of  the  crown. 

The  fourth  rule  imposes  a  similar  restric- 
tion on  the  powers  of  taxation.  Parliament, 
that  is  to  say  the  house  of  commons,  cannot 
impose  a  tax,  except  upon  the  recommenda- 


92  PARLIAMENT 

tion  of  the  crown.  Accordingly  any  proposal 
for  the  levy  of  a  new  tax  or  for  the  increase 
of  an  existing  tax  must  come  from  the  govern- 
ment. This  rule  only  applies  to  general 
taxes,  not  to  the  taxes  for  local  purposes 
which  are  known  as  rates. 

These  rules  are  constitutional  rules,  based 
partly  on  Acts  of  Parliament  such  as  the 
Bill  of  Rights  and  the  Act  of  Settlement, 
and  partly  on  parliamentary  usage  and  prac- 
tice. They  have  to  be  steadily  borne  in  mind 
when  the  financial  business  of  parliament  is 
under  consideration. 

Such  then  are  the  main  rules  in  accordance 
with  which  the  house  of  commons  controls 
the  raising  and  expenditure  of  the  national 
revenue.  That  revenue  is  derived  from 
several  sources,  but  the  chief  source  is  taxa- 
tion. The  taxes  imposed  by  the  authority  of 
parliament  are  partly  permanent  and  partly 
temporary.  The  great  majority  of  them  are 
permanent,  but,  in  order  to  maintain  the 
control  of  parliament  over  the  executive 
government,  some  of  the  most  important  of 
them  are  imposed  for  a  year  only.  Under 
the  existing  practice  the  income  tax,  which 
is  the  most  fruitful  of  the  direct  taxes,  and 
the  tea  duty,  which  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  the  indirect  taxes,  have  to  be 
renewed  every  year. 

The  whole  of  the  national  revenues,  from 
whatever  source  derived,  is,  with  some  trifling 
exceptions,  paid  into  the  bank  of  England  or 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION  93 

the  bank  of  Ireland  to  the  account  of  His 
Majesty's  exchequer,  and  is  placed  to  the 
credit  of  a  fund  called  the  consolidated  fund, 
and  out  of  this  fund  all  national  payments  are 
made.  Thus  there  is,  speaking  broadly,  one 
national  till,  into  which  all  national  receipts 
are  paid  and  out  of  which  all  national  pay- 
ments are  made.  That  till  is  the  consolidated 
fund  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

The  consolidated  fund  is  the  creation  of  the 
younger  Pitt  and  dates  from  1787.  Before 
that  date  the  practice  had  been  to  charge 
the  produce  of  specific  taxes  with  the  pay- 
ments of  specific  debts,  representing  money 
borrowed  by  the  State  at  different  times  for 
different  purposes.  There  had  been  partial 
consolidations  of  these  charges,  but  no  general 
consolidation.  What  Pitt  did  by  his  great 
Act  of  1787  was  to  carry  practically  all  the 
national  revenue  of  Great  Britain,  whether 
derived  from  taxes,  crown  lands,  or  other 
sources,  to  one  general  account  or  fund  called 
the  consolidated  fund,  and  to  charge  all  the 
national  debts  on  this  fund.  A  similar  meas- 
ure was  adopted  for  Ireland.  For  some  years 
after  the  Union  the  debts  of  Great  Britain 
and  of  Ireland  were  kept  distinct,  but  in  1816 
the  consolidated  funds  of  the  two  countries 
were  united  into  the  consolidated  fund  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

As  there  are  two  kinds  of  taxes,  represent- 
ing different  degrees  of  control  by  parliament, 
so  there  are  two  classes  of  expenditure,  one 


94  PARLIAMENT 

regulated  by  standing  laws,  the  other  by 
annual  votes  or  appropriations.  The  public 
expenditure  of  the  country  is  divided  into  two 
separate  and  distinct  general  heads,  which 
are  known  in  treasury  language  as  the  con- 
solidated fund  charges  and  the  annual  supply 
charges.  The  first  head  includes  the  more  per- 
manent charges,  which  have  been  authorized 
by  parliament  to  be  paid  from  time  to  time 
when  due,  the  treasury  being  responsible  for 
the  time  and  mode  of  payment.  The  second 
head  comprises  the  charges  annually  granted 
by  parliament  and  thus  brought  under  its 
immediate  cognizance  and  control.  Pay- 
ments falling  under  the  first  head  are  de- 
scribed in  statutory  language  as  being  made 
out  of  the  consolidated  fund.  Payments 
under  the  second  head  are  described  as  being 
made  out  of  moneys  provided  by  parliament. 
The  terminology  is  rather  confusing  to  one 
not  familiar  with  treasury  language  and  par- 
liamentary procedure,  because,  as  has  been 
explained,  all  payments  authorized  by  parlia- 
ment, whether  by  permanent  or  by  temporary 
appropriations,  are  made  out  of  the  consoli- 
dated fund.  But  the  distinction  is  important, 
and  materially  affects  the  work  of  parliament. 
The  permanent  charges  include  the  annual 
charges  for  the  national  debt,  for  the  civil  list 
(that  is  to  say  for  the  amounts  granted  at  the 
beginning  of  each  reign  to  defray  the  personal 
and  household  expenses  of  the  king  and  queen 
and  their  family  and  the  salaries  of  their 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION  95 

personal  staff),  for  judicial  salaries,  and  for 
other  payments  of  a  fixed  and  permanent 
character. 

Of  these  charges  the  first  and  most  im- 
portant is  that  for  the  national  debt. 

Into  the  history  and  various  forms  of  the 
national  debt  it  is  impossible  to  enter  here. 
It  must  suffice  to  say  that  what  is  called  the 
funded  debt,  excluding  terminable  annuities, 
is  debt  on  which  the  State  is  bound  to  pay 
interest  at  a  fixed  rate  in  the  form  of  annui- 
ties, and  the  capital  of  which  it  is  not  bound 
to  repay,  but  may  repay  at  par,  that  is  to 
say  at  the  nominal  value,  on  giving  notice. 
Terminable  annuities  are  merely  a  method 
by  which  a  portion  of  this  debt  is  paid  off,  by 
converting  it  into  annuities  charged  at  such 
a  rate  as  to  pay  off  principal  and  interest 
within  a  specified  time.  The  unfunded  or 
floating  debt  consists  of  loans,  raised  mainly 
by  treasury  bills  for  short  periods,  in  antici- 
pation of  ordinary  revenue.  Besides  these 
forms  of  debt  there  are  other  forms  of  capital 
liabilities,  such  as  the  loans  raised  under 
special  Acts  for  naval  or  military  works  or 
for  other  purposes  which  parliament  thinks 
may  be  legitimately  met  by  borrowing. 

Provision  is  made  by  law  for  the  systematic 
reduction  of  the  national  debt  in  various  ways 
including  what  are  called  the  old  and  the  new 
sinking  funds.  These  sinking  funds  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  sinking  funds  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  when  Pitt  was  persuaded 


96  PARLIAMENT 

for  a  time  that  debt  might  be  extinguished  by 
some  magic  operation  of  compound  interest, 
though  the  fund  for  the  purpose  was  itself 
raised  by  borrowing.  They  are  both  based 
in  their  present  form  on  an  Act  of  1875,  and 
it  may  be  worth  while  to  explain  their  nature, 
as  reference  is  frequently  made  to  them  in 
parliamentary  debates  on  finance.  It  is 
a  general  rule  that  any  grant  made  by  par- 
liament for  the  service  of  a  particular  finan- 
cial year,  the  year  ending  March  31st, 
lapses  so  far  as  it  is  unexpended  at  the  end 
of  the  year.  The  rule  has  often  been  criti- 
cized as  tending  to  hasty  and  wasteful  ex- 
penditure towards  the  close  of  the  financial 
year.  But  it  has  the  great  advantage  of 
enabling  the  national  accounts  to  be  made  up 
and  balanced,  and  the  surplus  or  deficit  as- 
certained, in  each  year,  instead  of  letting  the 
accounts  run  on  unbalanced  for  an  indefinite 
period.  The  Act  of  1875  requires  the  treasury  j 
to  prepare  within  fifteen  days  after  the  ex- 
piration of  every  financial  year  an  account 
of  the  public  income  and  expenditure  of  the 
United  Kingdom,  showing  the  surplus  of 
income  or  excess  of  expenditure  during  the 
year.  Any  surplus  of  income  is  required  to 
be  paid  to  the  national  debt  commissioners, 
and  applied  by  them  towards  purchasing, 
redeeming  or  paying  off  the  national  debt. 
This  surplus  is  called  the  old  sinking  fund.  It 
is  sometimes  made  applicable,  under  special 
statutory  provisions,  in  relief  of  the  expendi- 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION  97 

ture  of  a  subsequent  year,  or  toward  some 
special  expenditure.  The  same  Act  of  1875 
imposes  on  the  consolidated  fund  a  permanent 
annual  charge  for  the  payment  of  interest  on 
the  national  debt,  and  directs  that  any  surplus 
not  required  for  the  payment  thus  directed 
is  to  be  applied  by  the  national  debt  com- 
missioners towards  the  redemption  of  the 
debt.  This  surplus  over  the  permanent 
annual  charge  is  known  as  the  new  sinking 
fund.  The  amount  of  this  permanent  annual 
charge  was  fixed  by  the  Act  of  1875  at 
£28,000,000,  but  has  been  varied  since. 

The  observance  of  the  rules,  statutory  and 
other,  which  regulate  payments  out  of  the 
consolidated  fund  is  watched  over  by  a 
permanent  officer  called  the  comptroller  and 
auditor  general.  He  holds  office  during  good 
behaviour,  subject  to  removal  by  the  crown 
on  an  address  from  the  two  houses  of  parlia- 
ment. He  cannot  be  a  member  of  either 
house.  His  salary  is  fixed  by  statute  and 
charged  on  the  consolidated  fund.  Thus  he 
is  independent  both  of  parliament  and  of  the 
executive  government  of  the  day.  His  double 
name  indicates  his  dual  functions.  He  con- 
trols the  payments  out  of  the  consolidated 
fund  by  taking  care  that  nothing  is  taken  out 
of  that  fund  without  due  authority.  He 
subsequently  audits  the  authorized  expendi- 
ture, and  satisfies  himself  that  each  payment 
was  applied  to  the  purpose  to  which  it  was 
appropriated. 


98  PARLIAMENT 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  understand  the 
steps  which  must  be  taken  by  the  government 
to  obtain,  with  the  co-operation  of  parlia- 
ment, the  necessary  supplies  for  the  year. 
The  house  of  commons  has  to  do  two  things 
each  year:  first,  to  authorize  the  expenditure 
of  such  money  as  has  to  be  provided  by  the 
annual  votes,  and  secondly,  to  authorize  the 
imposition  of  such  taxes,  other  than  perma- 
nent taxes,  as  may  be  required  to  meet  the 
expenditure.  The  two  operations  go  on  con- 
currently, but  the  former  begins  first.  The 
former  culminates  in  the  Appropriation  Act 
for  the  year,  the  latter  in  the  Finance  Act  for 
the  year. 

The  first  step  is  taken  outside  parliament, 
and  consists  in  the  preparation  by  the  spend- 
ing departments  of  estimates  of  their  expendi- 
ture for  the  ensuing  financial  year.  These  are 
prepared  towards  the  end  of  the  calendar 
year,  are  submitted  to  and  scrutinized  by 
the  treasury,  and  are  finally  approved  by  the 
cabinet. 

In  order  to  make  the  estimates  as  accurate 
as  possible,  their  preparation  and  submission 
to  the  house  of  commons  is  put  off  to  the 
latest  possible  moment.  But  there  are  certain 
things,  well  known  to  the  treasury,  which 
the  house  cannot  do  until  estimates  have  been 
submitted,  and  which  must  be  done  before 
the  end  of  March  when  the  financial  year 
closes.  Owing  to  the  operation  of  these  two 
factors,  the  normal  parliamentary  session 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION  99 

usually  begins  somewhere  near  the  middle  of 
February. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  house  of 
commons  cannot  vote  money  except  in  pursu- 
ance of  a  request  or  demand  from  the  crown. 
The  demand  for  the  money  which  has  to  be 
voted  each  year  by  the  house  of  commons  is 
embodied  in  the  king's  speech  on  opening 
parliament  at  the  beginning  of  the  session. 
The  king,  specially  addressing  the  house  of 
commons,  demands  the  annual  supply  for 
the  public  service,  and  acquaints  the  com- 
mons that  estimates  will  be  laid  before  them 
of  the  amount  that  will  be  required.  These 
estimates  are  presented  to  the  house  by  the 
government  as  soon  as  practicable  afterwards. 
They  are  not  submitted  to  the  house  of  lords, 
for  that  body  has  no  concern  with  them. 

The  ordinary  annual  estimates  for  the 
coming  financial  year  are  presented  in  three 
parts  or  divisions,  each  comprising  one  of  the 
three  branches  of  the  public  service,  namely 
the  navy,  the  army  and  the  civil  services. 
Each  estimate  contains,  first,  an  estimate  of 
the  total  grant  thereby  demanded,  and  then  a 
statement  of  the  detailed  expenditure  under 
each  grant,  divided  into  subheads  or  items. 

At  the  beginning  of  each  session,  as  soon  as 
the  address  in  reply  to  the  king's  speech  has 
been  agreed  to,  the  house  of  commons  sets 
up  two  committees,  the  committee  of  supply 
and  the  committee  of  ways  and  means.  These 
committees  are  committees  of  the  whole 


100  PARLIAMENT 

house,  that  is  to  say,  they  are  not  committees 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  nor  smaller 
bodies  to  which  the  house  refers  some  matter 
for  inquiry  or  consideration  and  report,  or 
delegates  some  function,  but  merely,  as  ex- 
plained in  a  previous  chapter,  the  house  itself 
transacting  its  business  in  a  less  formal  man- 
ner, with  the  Speaker's  chair  vacant,  and 
under  the  presidency  of  a  chairman  who  sits 
at  the  table.  The  business  of  the  committee 
of  supply  is  to  consider  the  estimates,  and  to 
vote  such  grants  of  money  as  appear  to  be  re- 
quired. The  committee  of  ways  and  means* 
has  two  functions.  It  has  to  pass  resolutions 
authorizing  the  imposition  of  any  taxes  which 
may  be  required.  And  it  has  to  pass  resolu- 
tions authorizing  the  issue  out  of  the  consoli- 
dated fund  of  the  sums  required  to  meet  the 
grants  voted  by  the  committee  of  supply. 
The  first  of  these  functions  is  important,  and 
will  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
budget.  The  other  function  is  merely  formal 
and  consequential,  and  amounts  to  little 
more  than  authorizing  cheques  to  be  drawn 
for  the  expenditure  already  agreed  to. 

The  committees  of  supply  and  ways  and 
means  date  from  the  reign  of  Charles  I,  and 
at  that  time  supply  and  ways  and  means  went 
more  closely  hand  in  hand  than  they  do 
at  present.  The  house  would  consider,  in 
one  committee,  how  much  it  would  grant  the 
king  for  some  particular  need,  and,  immedi- 
ately afterwards,  in  another  committee,  what 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    101 

means  it  would  adopt  for  raising  the  money 
required.  At  the  present  day  the  estimates 
give,  at  the  beginning  of  the  session,  a  com- 
prehensive survey  of  the  needs  of  the  year, 
and  later  on  in  the  session  the  chancellor  of 
the  exchequer,  by  his  budget  statement,  gives 
a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  mode  in 
which  he  proposes  to  meet  these  needs.  But 
the  old  system  has  left  its  traces  in  the  exist- 
ing procedure. 

The  sittings  of  the  committee  of  supply 
continue  during  the  greater  part  of  the  ses- 
sion, and,  under  the  existing  standing  orders, 
at  least  twenty  days  must  be  set  apart  for  this 
purpose  before  the  fifth  of  August  in  each 
year.  But  the  business  at  these  sittings  is 
critical  rather  than  financial,  and  will  be 
dealt  with  as  such  under  another  head.  As  a 
consequence  of  the  principle  that  money  can- 
not be  voted  except  on  the  request  of  the 
crown,  the  committee  of  supply  cannot  in- 
crease a  grant  asked  for  by  the  estimates. 
Nor  can  the  committee  alter  the  destination 
of  a  grant.  What  the  committee  does  is  to 
criticize  the  administration  of  money  voted. 
Any  such  criticism  must,  in  order  to  comply 
with  the  rules  of  the  house,  be  based  on  a 
motion  to  reduce  or  reject  a  head  or  item  in 
the  estimates.  But  the  real  object  of  this 
motion  is  usually  to  elicit  an  explanation  of 
the  proposed  expenditure,  or  to  ventilate 
some  grievance  connected  with  it,  and,  if  the 
answer  is  at  all  satisfactory,  the  motion  is 


102  PARLIAMENT 

usually  dropped.    As  a  rule  the  estimates  are 
passed  as  they  are  presented. 

The  exigencies  of  the  public  service  make  it 
necessary  to  grant  money  before  the  criti- 
cism of  its  administration  is  completed.  Be- 
fore the  end  of  the  financial  year,  i.  e.  before 
the  end  of  March,  the  government  must  have 
enough  money  in  hand  to  "carry  on"  with 
during  at  least  a  portion  of  the  next  financial 
year.  The  navy  and  army  are  allowed  to 
apply  temporarily  the  surplus  on  any  of  their 
votes  to  some  other  navy  or  army  purpose, 
and  therefore  in  their  case  it  is  sufficient  to 
take  two  or  three  big  votes  before  the  end  of 
March.  In  the  case  of  the  civil  services  no 
similar  transfer  of  funds  is  allowed,  and  there- 
fore it  is  necessary  for  their  purposes  to  take 
a  vote  on  account  sufficient  to  cover  any 
period  which  may  be  considered  desirable. 
The  remaining  navy  and  army  votes,  and  the 
civil  service  votes  so  far  as  they  are  not  met 
by  a  vote  on  account,  are  discussed  on  the 
days  set  apart  for  the  committee  of  supply 
during  the  remainder  of  the  session,  and  any 
votes  which  have  not  been  previously  consid- 
ered and  disposed  of  are  passed  en  bloc  on  the 
last  day  on  which  the  committee  sits.  Be- 
sides the  ordinary  estimates  for  the  year,  it  is 
often  necessary  to  present  estimates  for  sup- 
plementary or  additional  grants  when  the 
amount  named  in  the  ordinary  estimate  for 
a  particular  service  is  found  to  be  insufficient 
for  the  purposes  of  the  current  year,  or  when 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    103 

a  need  arises  during  the  current  year  for  ex- 
penditure on  some  new  service  not  contem- 
plated in  the  ordinary  estimates  for  that  year. 

In  order  to  complete  the  steps  required  by 
law  for  the  issue  of  public  money,  the  reso- 
lutions passed  by  the  committee  of  supply 
have  to  be  reported  to  and  confirmed  by  the 
house,  sitting  formally  with  the  Speaker  in 
the  chair;  supplemented  by  the  necessary 
resolution  in  the  committee  of  ways  and 
means,  which  has  also  to  be  reported  and 
confirmed;  and  then  finally  confirmed  by  an 
Act  of  Parliament.  One  such  Act,  called  a 
consolidated  fund  Act,  has  to  be  passed  be- 
fore the  end  of  March,  and  similar  Acts  may 
become  necessary  during  the  course  of  the  ses- 
sion. These  Acts  anticipate  the  final  sanc- 
tion given  towards  the  end  of  the  session  by 
the  annual  appropriation  Act.  When  the 
committee  of  supply  has  completed  its  work 
by  passing  all  the  votes  asked  for,  and  its  reso- 
lutions have  been  supplemented  by  the  conse- 
quential resolution  in  committee  of  ways  and 
means,  and  when  all  these  resolutions  have 
been  agreed  to  by  the  house,  the  bill  which  is 
to  become  the  appropriation  Act  for  the  year 
is  brought  in.  The  several  votes  passed  by  the 
committee  of  supply  and  confirmed  by  the 
house  are  scheduled  to  this  Act,  and  the  Act 
requires  each  grant  so  voted  to  be  expended 
upon  the  service  to  which  it  is  thereby 
appropriated. 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  comptroller  and 


104  PARLIAMENT 

auditor  general  is  the  officer  responsible  for 
seeing  that  the  requirements  of  the  law  as  to 
the  issue  of  public  money  are  duly  observed. 
This  is  one  of  his  functions.  The  other  is  to 
see  that  money  issued  is  not  applied  to  any 
purpose  other  than  that  to  which  it  is  appro- 
priated. In  order  to  do  this  he  examines 
the  accounts  of  the  spending  departments  for 
each  financial  year,  and  then  presents  to 
parliament  what  are  known  as  the  appropria- 
tion accounts,  which  cover  in  great  detail  the 
actual  expenditure  in  all  the  services  for  which 
money  is  voted  by  the  committee  of  supply, 
with  his  reports  and  comments  thereon.  This 
business  of  examination  and  report  occupies 
a  considerable  time,  and  the  appropriation 
accounts  for  the  year  ending  with  the  thirty- 
first  of  March  in  one  year  are  usually  pre- 
sented in  the  February  of  the  following  year. 
They  are  then  referred  to  a  committee  which 
is  appointed  for  each  session  by  the  house  of 
commons,  and  is  called  the  committee  of 
public  accounts.  This  committee  inspects 
the  accounts,  considers  the  notes  made  by  the 
comptroller  and  auditor  general  of  the  reason 
for  spending  on  each  item  more  or  less  than 
the  amount  estimated,  inquires  into  the  items 
which  need  further  expenditure,  examining 
for  this  purpose  the  auditing  officers  of  the 
departments  and  other  persons,  and  makes  a 
series  of  reports  to  the  house.  The  reports 
of  the  comptroller  and  auditor  general  and 
of  the  committee  of  public  accounts  are  of 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    105 

the  greatest  possible  value  in  checking  laxity 
of  administration.  Extravagance  they  cannot 
stop:  for  this  the  government  and  the  house 
of  commons  are  responsible;  but  over  irregu- 
larity of  expenditure  they  exercise  a  very 
potent  control.  Days  are  sometimes  set  apart 
for  a  discussion  of  these  reports  by  the  house, 
but  it  has  usually  been  found  difficult  to  in- 
duce the  house  to  take  much  interest  in  the 
financial  irregularities  of  past  years. 

So  much  for  the  control  exercised  by  the 
house  of  commons  over  expenditure.  What 
remains  to  be  considered  is  their  control  over 
taxation. 

Once  in  every  year,  usually  soon  after 
Easter,  the  chancellor  of  the  exchequer  makes 
his  budget  statement  in  the  committee  of 
ways  and  means.  He  reviews  the  finance 
of  the  past  year,  comparing  estimated  with 
actual  results,  and  then  estimates  his  require- 
ments for  the  current  or  forthcoming  year, 
and  explains  the  mode  in  which  he  proposes 
to  raise  revenue  for  meeting  them.  In  so 
doing  he  always  tries  to  make  as  close  an 
approximation  as  possible  between  estimated 
revenue  and  estimated  expenditure.  If  the 
estimated  revenue  on  the  existing  basis  is 
more  than  sufficient  to  meet  estimated  ex- 
penditure, he  may  be  in  a  position  to  remit  or 
reduce  taxes.  If  it  is  insufficient  he  may  have 
to  increase  existing  taxes  or  impose  new 
taxes.  His  proposals  are  embodied  in  resolu- 
tions which  are  usually  handed  in  at  the  table 


106  PARLIAMENT 

of  the  house  immediately  after  the  conclusion 
of  his  budget  statement,  and  one  at  least  of 
them  is  usually  passed  on  the  same  night. 
The  budget  resolutions,  like  the  resolutions 
of  the  committee  of  supply,  do  not  obtain 
complete  legal  effect  until  they  have  been 
confirmed  by  an  Act  of  Parliament.  But  it 
is  necessary  to  prevent  the  lapse  of  such  an- 
nual taxes  as  it  is  intended  to  continue,  and 
also  to  guard  against  the  loss  of  revenue  which 
would  in  many  cases  arise  if  there  were  an 
interval  between  the  announcement  of  in- 
tention to  increase  or  impose  a  tax  and  the 
date  at  which  the  increase  or  imposition 
takes  effect.  If  the  intention  to  increase  the 
duty  on  tea  were  announced  before  the  date 
at  which  the  increased  duty  took  effect,  tea 
would  instantly  pour  into  the  ports  at  the 
lower  rate.  Consequently,  under  a  usage 
which  dates  back  at  least  to  the  time  of 
Blackstone  in  the  eighteenth  century,  a  reso- 
lution for  the  imposition  of  a  tax  which  ought 
on  fiscal  grounds  to  come  into  operation  im- 
mediately takes  administrative  effect  at  once 
under  directions  given  to  the  revenue  authori- 
ties. If  the  resolution  is  approved  by  parlia- 
ment it  is  embodied  in  and  confirmed  by  an 
Act  of  Parliament,  which  for  that  purpose  has 
a  retrospective  effect.  If  it  should  be  modified 
in  its  passage  through  the  house  of  commons, 
any  amount  collected  in  excess  of  that  ulti- 
mately authorized  would  be  refunded. 
The  budget  resolutions  proposed  by  the 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    107 

chancellor  of  the  exchequer  are  discussed  in 
the  committee  of  ways  and  means,  which  can 
reject  or  amend  any  resolution,  but  cannot, 
except  at  the  instance  of  a  minister  of  the 
crown,  increase  the  amount  proposed  to  be 
raised  by  taxes.  When  the  resolutions  have 
been  passed  by  the  committee  and  agreed  to 
by  the  house,  they  form  the  foundation  of  a 
bill  which  goes  through  the  same  stages  as 
other  bills,  and  which,  when  it  becomes  law, 
is  known  as  the  Finance  Act. 

Formerly  it  was  the  practice  to  have  several 
taxing  Acts  for  each  year.  Different  taxes 
or  sets  of  taxes,  and  proposals  relating  to 
revenue  administration  and  the  national  debt, 
were  dealt  with  by  different  measures.  It  was 
in  pursuance  of  this  practice  that  Gladstone's 
proposal  in  1860  to  repeal  the  paper  duties 
was  embodied  in  a  separate  bill.  But  the  re- 
jection of  this  bill  by  the  house  of  lords  led  to 
an  alteration  of  practice.  The  lords  had  al- 
ways asserted  the  right  to  reject  money  bills, 
but  had  never  ventured  to  amend  them.  In 
order  to  make  the  exercise  of  this  right  of 
rejection  more  difficult,  Gladstone  in  1861 
brought  in  a  comprehensive  taxing  bill, 
dealing  with  all  the  taxes  which  were  to  be 
imposed  or  continued,  and  including  a  repeal 
of  the  paper  duties.  The  practice  thus 
established  has  ever  since  been  continued,  and 
has  been  developed.  Until  1894  the  taxing 
Act  of  the  year  was  known  as  the  Customs 
and  Inland  Revenue  Act.  In  that  year  its 


108  PARLIAMENT 

title  was  changed  to  the  Finance  Act,  at  itle 
which  it  has  ever  since  retained.  Under  that 
title  it  usually  includes,  not  only  all  the  taxes 
imposed  or  continued  for  the  financial  year, 
but  such  fiscal  regulations  as  may  be  required 
in  relation  either  to  the  revenue  or  to  the 
national  debt.  But  some  of  these  regulations 
are  occasionally  embodied  in  a  separate 
supplemental  measure. 

Taxation  is  not  the  only  way  in  which 
money  is  raised  for  the  needs  of  the  State.  As 
in  the  case  of  all  other  business  concerns,  it  is 
also  necessary  to  borrow,  either  in  anticipa- 
tion of  the  ordinary  receipts  of  the  year,  or  to 
meet  expenditure  which  cannot  reasonably  be 
expected  to  be  defrayed  out  of  the  income  of 
the  year.  Every  consolidated  fund  Act  and 
every  appropriation  Act  contains  a  provision 
empowering  the  treasury  to  borrow  money  by 
short  loans  in  the  form  of  treasury  bills,  or 
otherwise,  to  the  extent  of  the  expenditure 
authorized  by  the  Act.  Loans  of  this  kind 
form  the  great  mass  of  the  floating  debt,  and 
it  was  by  the  help  of  such  loans  that  the 
government  was  able  to  carry  on  its  work  for 
some  time  after  the  rejection  of  the  Finance 
Bill  in  1909.  Loans  for  longer  periods  require 
special  legislation,  which  has  to  be  preceded 
by  resolutions  similar  to  those  which  precede 
an  ordinary  finance  bill. 

If  we  ask  how  far  the  control  of  the  house  of 
commons  over  expenditure  and  taxation  is 
effective,  the  answer  will  probably  be,  that 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    109 

over  irregularity  of  expenditure  the  system  of 
control  is,  on  the  whole,  effective  and  satis- 
factory, that  over  amount  of  expenditure  the 
control  is  not  very  effective,  but  that  the 
control  over  taxation  is  substantial. 

When  a  government  is  charged  with  ex- 
travagance, the  reply  is  usually  made,  and  is 
made  with  truth,  that  the  pressure  of  the 
house  of  commons  is  in  the  direction  of  expen- 
diture rather  than  of  economy.  Economy  is 
preached  in  the  abstract,  but  the  demands  for 
expenditure  are  more  specific  and  detailed, 
more  persistent,  and  therefore  more  effective. 
Nothing  is  more  difficult  or  more  unpopular 
than  administrative  economy.  Attempts  in 
this  direction  have  to  encounter,  not  only 
arguments  based  on  efficiency,  but  the  still 
more  formidable  opposition  proceeding  from 
the  numerous  private  and  personal  interests 
which  would  be  adversely  affected  by  re- 
trenchment. The  real  custodian  of  the  pub- 
lic purse,  the  watchdog  against  claimants  on 
public  funds,  is  the  treasury,  and  the  treasury 
is  not  popular. 

It  has  often  been  suggested  that  the  control 
of  the  treasury  over  the  estimates  should  be 
supplemented  by  the  action  of  a  special  com- 
mittee of  the  house  of  commons  charged  with 
the  duty  of  revising  the  estimates,  or  some 
branch  of  them,  before  they  are  submitted  to 
what  is  called  the  committee  of  supply,  but 
is,  as  has  been  seen,  really  the  whole  house. 
Whether  such  a  committee  would  not,  like 


110  PARLIAMENT 

the  house  itself,  be  often  more  apt  to  ad- 
vocate expenditure  than  economy  may  be 
doubted.  But  apart  from  this,  there  are 
serious  difficulties  in  the  way  of  adopting 
these  suggestions.  There  is  the  difficulty  of 
considering  administration  apart  from  policy, 
and  there  is  also  the  grave  objection  that  any 
such  committee  would  share,  and  therefore 
would  weaken,  that  exclusive  responsibility 
for  the  estimates  which  ought  to  rest  with  the 
ministry.  The  appointment  of  parliamen- 
tary committees  from  time  to  time  to  inquire 
into  the  staff  and  expenditure  of  particular 
departments  might  be  more  useful  and  prac- 
ticable. The  need  for  some  improvement 
in  our  methods  of  controlling  expenditure  is 
generally  admitted. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  control  of  the  house 
of  commons  over  taxation  is  undeniably 
substantial  and  effective.  Taxation,  unlike 
expenditure,  is  always  unpopular,  and  the 
chancellor  of  the  exchequer  may  fairly  say 
that  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive. 
Therefore  any  proposals  for  taxation  which 
he  may  bring  forward  are  pretty  sure  to  be 
met  by  vigilant  and  well-informed  criticism 
and  to  encounter  formidable  opposition. 

It  is  true  that  he  can  exercise  greater  con- 
trol over  the  fortunes  of  his  budget  than  the 
finance  ministers  of  many  other  countries. 
In  France  the  budget  proposals  are  referred  to 
a  very  strong  budget  committee,  which  takes 
them  completely  out  of  the  hands  of  the 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    111 

finance  minister,  and  often  returns  them  in 
a  shape  quite  inconsistent  with  his  general 
financial  scheme.  In  Germany  the  position 
is  much  the  same.  But  in  England  the 
chancellor  of  the  exchequer  retains  his  con- 
duct of,  and  responsibility  for,  his  financial 
resolutions,  and  the  bill  founded  on  them, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  their  parlia- 
mentary career.  But  he  has  to  fight  them 
through  the  house  as  best  he  can,  and  meet 
the  criticisms  which  assail  him  from  every 
quarter,  and  his  proposals  often  undergo  sub- 
stantial transformation  before^they  emerge 
in  the  form  of  law. 

Administration. 

Parliament  does  not  govern.  Parliament 
tary  government  does  not  mean  government 
by  parliament.  Once,  and  once  only,  in  the 
course  of  English  history  has  the  house  of 
commons  attempted  to  administer  the  affairs 
of  the  country  through  executive  committees, 
and  the  precedent  set  by  the  long  parliament 
has  not  been  followed. 

What  is  done  by  parliament,  and  especially 
by  the  house  of  commons,  is  in  the  first  place 
to  secure  that  the  king's  ministers,  who  con- 
trol and  are  responsible  for  the  executive 
government  of  the  country,  shall  represent 
and  have  the  confidence  of  the  party,  or  com- 
bination of  parties,  which  commands  a  major- 
ity in  the  house,  and  in  the  next  place  to 


112  PARLIAMENT 

control  the  action  of  those  ministers  by  means 
of  questions  and  criticisms. 

Any  member  has  the  right  to  address  a 
question  to  any  minister  of  the  crown,  being 
also  a  member  of  the  house,  about  the  public 
affairs  with  which  he  is  officially  connected, 
or  a  matter  of  administration  for  which  he 
is  responsible.  The  proper  object  of  such  a 
question  is  to  obtain  information  on  a  matter 
of  fact  within  the  special  cognizance  of  the 
minister,  and  the  rules  and  practice  of  the 
house  limit  the  right  to  ask  questions  so  as  to 
confine  them  to  this  object.  The  practice 
of  putting  questions  to  ministers  developed 
rapidly  during  the  latter  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  and  tended  to  occupy  so  much 
time  that  restrictions  became  necessary. 
Under  the  existing  rules  notice  of  any  such 
question  must  except  in  special  cases,  appear 
on  the  notice  paper  of  the  house  at  least  one 
day  before  the  answer  is  to  be  given,  so  that 
the  minister  may  have  time  to  prepare  his 
answer.  If  a  member  wishes  his  question  to 
be  answered  orally,  he  marks  it  with  an  as- 
terisk, and  a  period  of  about  three-quarters 
of  an  hour  is  set  apart  on  four  afternoons  of 
the  week  for  the  answering  of  such  questions. 
During  that  period  supplementary  questions 
may  be  asked  within  limits  determined  by  the 
Speaker,  but  no  debate  is  allowed  to  arise,  and 
in  this  respect  the  English  practice  differs 
from  the  "interpellations"  of  the  French 
chamber.  A  minister  cannot  be  compelled 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    113 

to  answer  a  question,  and  sometimes  declines 
to  do  so  on  the  ground  of  public  interest.  It 
is  for  him  to  determine  what  kind  of  answer 
is  likely  to  be  considered  proper  and  sufficient 
in  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  An  unsatis- 
factory answer  may  give  rise  to  a  motion  for 
adjournment  of  the  house,  which,  under  one 
of  the  standing  orders,  is  the  technical  mode 
of  obtaining  a  discussion  at  a  later  hour  of  the 
day.  But  such  a  motion  is  not  allowed  unless 
the  matter  to  be  discussed  is  a  "definite 
matter  of  urgent  public  importance,"  and  the 
Speaker  is  strict  in  his  interpretation  of 
this  rule.  The  answers  to  "unstarred"  ques- 
tions, and  to  "starred"  questions  for  which 
time  cannot  be  found  within  the  allowed 
period,  are  circulated  to  members  subse- 
quently. 

Asking  questions  in  the  house  is  one  of  the 
easiest  methods  by  which  a  member  can 
notify  to  his  constituents  the  attention  which 
he  devotes  to  public  affairs  and  to  their  special 
interests.  For  this  and  other  reasons,  the 
right  to  ask  questions  is  specially  liable  to 
abuse,  and  its  exercise  needs  careful  super- 
vision by  the  Speaker  and  those  acting  under 
his  authority.  But  there  is  no  more  valuable 
safeguard  against  maladministration,  no  more 
effective  method  of  bringing  the  searchlight  of 
criticism  to  bear  on  the  action  or  inaction  of 
the  executive  government  and  its  subordi- 
nates. A  minister  has  to  be  constantly  asking 
himself,  not  merely  whether  his  proceedings 


114  PARLIAMENT 

and  the  proceedings  of  those  for  whom  he  is 
responsible  are  legally  or  technically  defen- 
sible, but  what  kind  of  answer  he  can  give  if 
questioned  about  them  in  the  house,  and  how 
that  answer  will  be  received. 

The  asking  of  questions  is  not  the  only 
mode  in  which  the  house  can  obtain  informa- 
tion from  or  through  the  government.  It  can, 
on  the  motion  of  any  member,  obtain  returns 
supplying  such  information  on  matters  of 
public  importance  as  is  obtainable  through 
departments  of  the  government.  A  motion 
for  a  return  may  be  opposed  on  grounds  of 
public  policy,  such  as  that  the  disclosure  of 
the  information  sought  is  not  for  the  public 
interest,  or  that  its  supply  would  involve 
unreasonable  labour  and  expense,  but  much 
information  thus  sought  is  periodically  sup- 
plied in  the  form  of  "unopposed  returns." 
The  government  can  also  and  frequently  does, 
on  its  own  initiative,  lay  papers  before  the 
house,  papers  technically  known  as  "com- 
mand papers"  because  they  are  supposed  to 
be  presented  by  command  of  the  king.  Other 
methods  of  obtaining  information  are  the 
appointment  of  a  parliamentary  committee, 
of  a  royal  commission,  or  of  a  departmental 
committee,  and  these  methods  are  often 
adopted,  at  the  instance  of  parliament,  when 
the  object  is  to  collect,  consider  and  formu- 
late suggestions  for  legislative  or  administra- 
tive reforms.  A  parliamentary  committee  is 
appointed  and  constituted  by  an  order  of  the 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    115 

house,  and  is  armed  by  the  house  with  the 
power  of  requiring  the  attendance  of  witnesses 
and  the  production  of  papers.  It  cannot  sit 
except  when  the  house  is  sitting,  and  is 
appointed  for  one  session  only,  so  that  if  its 
work  is  left  unfinished  at  the  end  of  the 
session,  it  must  be  reappointed.  Sometimes 
there  is  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  houses, 
consisting  of  members  selected  by  and  from 
each  house.  When  the  questions  to  be  dis- 
cussed raise  political  issues  a  parliamentary 
committee  is  usually  preferred  to  a  royal 
commission  or  departmental  committee.  A 
royal  commission  is  appointed  and  consti- 
tuted by  the  king  on  the  advice  of  the  minis- 
ter representing  the  government  department 
specially  concerned  with  the  questions  to  be 
considered.  It  has  no  power  to  compel  the 
attendance  of  witnesses  or  the  production  of 
documents  unless  this  power  is  conferred  on 
it  by  a  special  Act  of  Parliament.  On  the 
other  hand,  its  sittings  and  duration  are 
independent  of  the  sittings  of  parliament.  A 
departmental  committee  is  appointed  and 
constituted  by  a  minister  of  the  crown  to 
inquire  into  and  report  on  some  matter  con- 
nected with  the  business  of  his  department. 
Its  functions  and  powers  are  much  the  same 
as  those  of  a  royal  commission. 

The  papers  laid  before  either  house  of 
parliament,  under  an  order  of  the  house, 
or  on  the  initiative  of  a  minister,  the  returns 
periodically  presented  in  pursuance  of  direc- 


116  PARLIAMENT 

tions  in  Acts  of  Parliament,  and  the  reports  of 
committees  and  commissions,  make  up  the 
formidable  mass  of  official  papers  popularly 
known  as  "blue  books." 

Questions  and  motions  for  returns  are 
means  for  obtaining  information  on  which 
criticism  may  be  based,  but  do  not  themselves 
supply  opportunities  for  criticism.  Such 
opportunities  are  afforded  in  various  ways. 

At  the  beginning  of  each  session  amend- 
ments may  be  framed  on  the  address  in  reply 
to  the  king's  speech  in  such  a  way  as  to  raise 
a  debate  on  almost  any  question  of  general 
policy  or  public  administration.  The  ques- 
tions usually  selected  are  those  which  at  the 
moment  excite  most  general  interest,  and  the 
debate  on  them  extends  over  several  days. 

Any  member  is  entitled  to  bring  forward  a 
motion  condemning  or  criticizing  the  govern- 
ment or  any  member  or  department  of  the 
government.  If  such  a  motion  were  made  by 
the  leader  of  the  opposition,  it  would  be 
treated  as  a  vote  of  want  of  confidence,  and 
time  would  be  given  by  the  government  for 
its  discussion.  But  the  opportunities  afford- 
ed to  other  members  for  the  exercise  of  this 
right  are,  in  practice,  severely  limited.  In 
the  early  part  of  the  session  a  certain  number 
of  evenings,  at  first  two  in  each  week,  after- 
wards one,  are  set  apart  for  private  members' 
motions,  and  members  ballot  for  priority  on 
these  evenings.  But  these  evenings  are 
sometimes  taken  by  the  government  under 


FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    117 

pressure  of  business,  disappear  altogether 
after  Whitsuntide,  and,  whilst  available,  are 
not  always  utilized  to  the  best  advantage. 

More  frequent  and  regular  opportunities 
for  reviewing  and  criticizing  the  action  of  the 
government  are  afforded  by  the  various  steps 
which,  as  previously  explained,  must  be 
taken  to  obtain  supply,  that  is  to  authorize 
expenditure.  From  the  old  constitutional 
principle,  asserted  in  the  earliest  parliaments, 
that  the  redress  of  grievances  should  precede 
the  grant  of  supply,  it  has  been  deduced  as  a 
parliamentary  rule  that  the  action  of  each 
minister,  and  of  the  departments  and  officers 
over  whom  he  has  control,  can  be  discussed  on 
the  vote  for  the  branch  of  expenditure  con- 
cerned. On  the  motion  for  first  going  into 
committee  of  supply  on  the  navy  estimates, 
any  question  relating  to  the  administration  of 
the  navy  may  be  raised  and  discussed,  and 
the  same  rule  applies  to  the  army  estimates 
and  the  civil  service  estimates.  In  the  com- 
mittee the  discussion  is  confined  to  the  partic- 
ular vote  or  votes  set  down  for  consideration, 
though  a  wider  range  is  allowed  to  the  debate 
on  the  first  vote  both  in  the  navy  estimates 
and  in  the  army  estimates. 

A  minimum  number  of  days,  not  less  than 
twenty  in  each  session  before  the  5th  of 
August,  must  be  allotted  for  these  discussions. 
The  votes  to  be  taken  on  each  of  these  days 
are  fixed  by  arrangement  between  the  party 
whips  and  are  practically  selected  by  the 


118  PARLIAMENT 

opposition  as  the  natural  and  normal  critic  of 
the  government,  subject  to  the  reservation 
of  two  or  three  days  for  the  discussion 
of  Scottish  and  Irish  grievances.  Further 
opportunities  for  discussing  administration, 
nominally  in  connection  with  expenditure,  are 
given  by  supplementary  estimates,  by  votes 
on  account,  by  the  debates  which  may  take 
place  when  votes  in  committee  are  reported 
to  the  house,  and  by  the  second  and  third 
reading  stages  of  any  consolidated  fund  bill 
or  appropriation  bill,  for  at  these  stages  the 
conduct  or  actions  of  any  of  those  who  receive 
or  administer  grants  specified  in  and  sanc- 
tioned by  the  bill  may  be  discussed.  In  this 
way,  under  the  guise  of  fiscal  discussion,  every 
department  of  the  government,  every  branch 
of  the  central  administration,  is  liable  to  run 
the  gauntlet  of  parliamentary  criticism. 
Other  opportunities  are  offered  by  the  motion 
for  adjournment  over  a  recess,  when  great 
latitude  of  debate  is  allowed. 

We  sometimes  hear  about  the  tyranny  exer- 
cised by  cabinets,  and  by  the  majority  on 
whose  support  they  depend.  It  is  true  that 
the  executive  government  of  the  country  takes 
a  greater  share  in  the  initiation  of  legislative 
and  financial  proposals,  and  exercises  greater 
control  over  their  course  through  the  legisla» 
ture,  than  in  many  countries  enjoying  parlia- 
mentary institutions.  It  is  also  true  that  the 
bonds  of  party  discipline  tend  to  tighten.  But 
the  government  has  to  defend  by  argument 


,  FINANCE  AND  ADMINISTRATION    119 

all  its  legislative  and  financial  proposals,  and 
may  be  required  to  explain  and  justify  any 
branch  of  its  administrative  action.  It  must 
be  admitted  that  the  time  allotted  to  the 
criticism  of  administration  in  committee  is 
frittered  away  in  the  ventilation  of  unimport- 
ant grievances.  The  system  has  its  defects 
but  it  exercises  a  wholesome  influence  on  the 
official  world,  and  frequently  gives  rise  to  de- 
bates of  great  value  and  importance.  No- 
thing clears  the  air  more  effectually  than  a 
good  parliamentary  debate,  or  reveals  more 
distinctly  the  currents  of  popular  feeling  and 
public  opinion,  and  the  force  with  which  they 
flow.  Of  the  results  of  such  a  debate  the 
division  list  is  a  very  imperfect  and  fallacious 
test.  The  arguments  and  attitude  of  minori- 
ties and  of  individual  members  are  factors  of 
the  greatest  importance  in  determining  the 
action  of  the  government. 

It  must  be  repeated  that  parliament  does 
not  govern,  and  is  not  intended  to  govern.  A. 
strong  executive  government,  tempered  and 
controlled  by  constant,  vigilant,  and  represen- 
tative criticism,  is  the  ideal  at  which  parlia- 
mentary institutions  aim. 


CHAPTER  V 

SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE 

EVER  since  the  beginning  of  parliamentary 
history  Westminster  has  been  the  place  at 
which  parliaments  have  been  ordinarily  held. 
They  have  been  held  elsewhere  in  excep- 
tional circumstances,  but  Westminster  has 
always  been  their  normal  home.  The  last 
occasion  on  which  parliament  sat  in  any 
other  place  was  the  Oxford  parliament  of 
Charles  II.  The  habits  of  Plantagenet  kings 
were  migratory,  and,  for  reasons  of  war, 
state,  or  economy,  they  often  shifted  their 
quarters.  But  the  Palace  of  Westminster, 
outside,  yet  conveniently  near,  their  chief 
city,  was  their  principal  residence,  and 
it  was  natural  that  the  assemblies  which 
developed  into  parliaments  should  usually 
be  summoned  to  meet  in  their  Westminster 
palace. 

The  old  palace  and  the  abbey  closely 
adjoined  each  other,  and  were  practically 
contiguous,  for  one  passed  into  the  abbey 
through  a  gateway  from  Old  Palace  Yard, 
which  was  the  inner  court  of  the  palace. 
Which  particular  hall  or  room  in  the  palace 

120 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE      121 

was  most  frequently  used  for  the  meeting  of 
the  earliest  parliaments  is  uncertain,  but  it 
is  known  that  for  many  centuries,  and  down 
to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the 
lords  sat  in  an  ancient  building  at  its  south 
end.  This  was  the  building  which  Guy 
Fawkes  tried  to  blow  up. 

Whether  in  the  earliest  parliaments  the 
two  houses  sat  together,  and  if  so  at  what 
time  they  began  to  sit  apart,  is  also  still  a 
matter  of  discussion  among  historians.  Per- 
haps one  is  entitled  to  ask  whether  it  is 
certain  that  they  sat  at  all.  As  has  been 
remarked  in  an  earlier  chapter,  the  proceed- 
ings of  these  parliaments  resembled  those 
of  an  eastern  durbar,  and  one  may  picture 
to  oneself  the  king  sitting  on  his  throne,  with 
seats  for  some  of  his  great  nobles  and  prelates 
but  with  no  more  than  standing  room  for 
the  majority  of  the  assembly.  These  would 
group  themselves  as  dignity  and  convenience 
suggested,  the  barons  who  represented  them- 
selves often  mingling  with  the  knights  of 
shires  who  represented  counties,  and  sepa- 
rated by  no  physical  barrier  from  the  citizens 
and  burgesses.  However  this  may  have  been, 
we  know  that  early  in  the  reign  of  Edward  III 
the  commons  were,  after  the  opening  of  par- 
liament, directed  to  withdraw  for  their  de- 
liberations into  a  separate  chamber.  Their 
place  of  deliberation  seems  to  have  been 
usually  in  the  adjoining  abbey,  either  the 
chapter-house  or  the  refectory.  Direct  evi- 


122  PARLIAMENT 

dence  on  the  subject  is  scanty  and  imperfect, 
but  tradition  is  uniform  that  until  the  end 
of  Henry  VIII's  reign  their  usual  place  of 
sitting  was  the  Westminster  chapter-house. 
It  was  conveniently  near  the  palace,  and  we 
may  surmise  that  its  use  for  this  secular 
purpose  was  as  much  by  order  of  the  king  as 
by  permission  of  the  abbot.  The  relations 
between  palace  and  abbey,  king  and  abbot, 
were  very  close,  and  it  did  not  suit  either  to 
examine  too  minutely  the  authority  of  the 
other.  Plantagenet  kings  kept  their  treasure 
in  the  abbey,  close  to  the  chapter  house,  and 
exercised  rights  over  this  part  of  the  building. 
And  to  this  day  the  chapter-house  is,  as  the 
presence  of  policemen  indicates,  under  the 
custody,  not  of  the  dean,  but  of  the  king's 
chief  commissioner  of  works. 

Henry  VIII  disestablished  and  disendowed 
the  foundation  of  St.  Stephen's  Chapel,  which 
had  been  the  royal  chapel  of  the  palace,  and 
in  1547,  the  first  year  of  his  successor's  reign, 
this  chapel  was  set  apart  for  the  use  of  the 
house  of  commons,  and  continued  to  be  its 
home  until  the  fire  of  1834.  After  the  demoli- 
tions and  alterations  which  began  in  1800,  the 
lords  sat  in  a  large  hall  known  at  various 
times  as  the  White  Hall  and  the  court  of 
Requests,  parallel  to  Westminster  Hall,  and 
situated  where  the  statue  of  Richard  Cosur 
de  Lion  now  stands.  At  right  angles  to  this 
hall,  and  therefore  parallel  to  St.  Stephen's 
Chapel,  was  an  old  building  called  the  Painted 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE       123 

Chamber,  from  the  decorations  on  its  walls. 
In  this  chamber  conferences  between  the 
two  houses  were  usually  held.  The  fire  of 
1834  destroyed  the  whole  of  the  ancient 
palace,  except  Westminster  Hall  and  the 
crypt  and  part  of  the  cloisters  of  St.  Stephen's 
Chapel.  But  the  hall  then  used  as  the  house 
of  lords,  and  the  Painted  Chamber,  were 
temporarily  repaired  and  fitted  up,  the  first 
for  the  commons,  the  second  for  the  lords. 

The  new  palace  which  rose  on  the  ruins  of 
the  old  was  designed  by  Sir  Charles  Barry, 
and  took  many  years  to  construct.  The  lords 
first  occupied  their  present  quarters  on  April 
13, 1847,  the  commons  theirs  on  May  13, 1850. 

The  old  palace  had  ceased  to  be  a  royal 
residence  since  early  in  Henry  VIII's  reign, 
but  remained  a  royal  palace.  Its  successor 
is  still  a  royal  palace,  and,  as  such,  is  under 
the  charge  of  the  lord  great  chamberlain,  an 
hereditary  officer  of  state. 

The  rooms  set  apart  in  the  palace  for  the 
sittings  of  the  two  houses  face  each  other  in 
such  a  way  that,  through  the  intervening  hall 
and  corridors,  the  king's  throne  at  the  south 
end  of  the  house  of  lords  is  visible  from  the 
Speaker's  chair  at  the  north  end  of  the  house 
of  commons.  At  right  angles  to  them  and 
to  Westminster  Hall  is  St.  Stephen's  Hall, 
lined  by  statues  of  parliamentary  statesmen, 
and  occupying  the  site  of  St.  Stephen's 
Chapel,  which  was  the  home  of  the  house  of 
commons  for  nearly  300  years.. 


124  PARLIAMENT 

The  room  in  which  the  house  of  commons 
now  sits  is  constructed  on  the  same  general 
lines  as  the  old  chapel  of  St.  Stephen,  and, 
like  it,  does  not  provide  sitting  accommoda- 
tion for  anything  like  the  total  number  of 
members.  In  the  body  of  the  house  there  are 
less  than  350  seats  for  the  670  members. 
But,  for  discomfort  in  crowding,  there  is 
compensation  in  ease  of  hearing.  Any  one 
can  make  himself  heard  without  straining 
his  voice,  and  business  debates  are  therefore 
far  more  practicable  than  in  the  spacious 
chamber  allotted  to  the  house  of  represen- 
tatives at  Washington.  The  accident  that 
the  house  of  commons  sits  in  a  narrow  room, 
with  benches  facing  each  other,  and  not,  like 
most  continental  legislatures,  in  a  semi- 
circular space,  with  seats  arranged  like  those 
of  a  theatre,  makes  for  the  two-party  system 
and  against  groups  shading  into  each  other. 
In  the  house  of  lords  there  are  cross  benches, 
but  there  are  none  in  the  house  of  commons. 

So  much  must  suffice  for  the  place  of  sit- 
ting. In  dealing  with  the  time  of  sittings  we 
must  in  the  first  place  distinguish  between  a 
parliament,  a  session,  and  a  sitting. 

A  new  parliament  is  called  together  by 
means  of  writs  of  summons,  which  are  sent 
out  from  the  crown  office,  in  pursuance  of 
a  royal  proclamation  and  order  in  council, 
and  which  summon  peers,  direct  the  election 
of  members  of  the  house  of  commons,  and 
fix  the  day  on  which  the  parliament  is  to 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE       125 

meet.  The  same  proclamation  dissolves  one 
parliament  and  summons  its  successor,  and 
a  general  election  intervenes  between  the 
death  of  the  one  and  the  birth  of  the  other. 
It  is  the  king,  acting  on  the  advice  of  his 
ministers,  that  determines  the  dates  of  dis- 
solution and  of  meeting  again.  Under  the 
Septennial  Act  the  duration  of  a  parliament 
must  not  exceed  seven  years,  but  dissolution 
always  anticipates  the  running  out  of  the 
full  time. 

Under  the  Plantagenet  kings  a  few  days 
often  sufficed  for  the  work  of  each  parlia- 
ment. In  Tudor  times  their  duration  ex- 
tended longer,  and  the  practice  grew  up  of 
having  several  distinct  sessions  of  the  same 
parliament.  A  session  is  terminated  by  pro- 
rogation which,  like  dissolution,  is  effected 
by  order  of  the  king,  acting  on  the  advice  of 
his  ministers.  Prorogation  does  not  affect 
the  seats  of  members,  but  puts  an  end  to 
the  current  business  of  the  session,  and  kills 
all  bills  which  have  not  become  law  before 
parliament  is  prorogued. 

A  sitting  of  either  house  is  terminated  by 
adjournment,  and  an  adjournment,  unlike  a 
dissolution  or  prorogation,  is  the  act  of  each 
house,  independently  of,  and  at  different  times 
from,  the  other  house,  and  merely  suspends 
the  transaction  of  current  business. 

It  is  in  the  exercise  of  this  power  that  each 
house  adjourns  its  sittings  from  day  to  day 
and  over  the  recesses  which  usually  take 


126  PARLIAMENT 

place  at  Easter  and  Whitsuntide,  and  some- 
times for  a  longer  period  in  the  autumn. 

The  opening  of  a  new  parliament,  and  of 
each  new  session,  is  attended  by  ceremonials 
which  recall,  and  which  date  from,  Planta- 
genet  times.  The  king  sits  on  his  throne, 
with  his  great  officers  of  state  on  either  side. 
The  benches  of  the  house  of  lords  are  occupied 
by  the  lords  spiritual  and  temporal,  and  by 
the  peeresses.  The  judges,  summoned  as 
attendants,  sit  on  their  woolsacks,  in  the 
middle.  The  commons,  as  beseems  their 
humbler  station,  find  such  room  as  they  can, 
at  or  near  the  bar,  with  their  Speaker  at  their 
head. 

The  hours  of  sitting  in  the  house  of  commons 
have  altered  much  in  the  course  of  centuries. 
In  the  seventeenth  century  a  sitting  would 
begin  with  prayers  at  8.30  or  9  in  the  morning. 
Difficulties  about  artificial  light  discouraged 
late  sittings,  and  a  common  form  of  obstruc- 
tion was  to  oppose  the  order  that  candles  be 
brought  in.  In  the  eighteenth  century,  the 
adjournment  was  still  nominally  till  9  o'clock 
in  the  next  morning,  but  business  practically 
began  between  3  and  4  in  the  afternoon. 
There  were  late  sittings,  and  it  was  the  rays 
of  the  rising  sun  stealing  through  the  windows 
of  St.  Stephen's  that  once  suggested  a  well- 
known  peroration  to  the  younger  Pitt. 

After  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century 
the  frequency  and  duration  of  late  sittings 
told  heavily  on  the  health  and  strength  of 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE       127 

members,  but  the  burden  was  mitigated  by  a 
new  standing  order  of  1888,  the  12  o'clock 
rule,  which  terminated  ordinary  business  at 
midnight.  The  normal  hour  for  stopping, 
or,  as  it  is  technically  called  "  interrupting," 
business  was  thrown  back  from  12  to  11 
in  1906. 

Under  existing  arrangements  the  house  / 
meets  at  2.45  p.m.  on  Monday,  Tuesday, 
Wednesday  and  Thursday.  Immediately 
after  prayers  the  house  takes  small  items 
of  formal  business,  such  as  the  unopposed 
stages  of  private  bills,  motions  for  unop- 
posed returns,  and  the  presentation  of  any 
petitions  which  members  may  desire  to 
present  orally  instead  of  putting  them  in  one 
of  the  old  fashioned  carpet  bags  behind  or 
near  the  Speaker's  chair.  Three  quarters 
of  an  hour,  or  possibly  more,  are  then  devoted 
to  the  asking  and  answering  of  questions 
addressed  to  ministers,  but  these  must, 
subject  to  certain  limited  exceptions,  be 
finished  by  3.45,  so  that  the  regular  business 
of  the  day,  the  public  business  set  down  on 
the  notice  paper,  usually  begins  shortly 
before  4  p.m.  and  continues  until  11.  After 
that  hour  opposed  business  cannot  be  taken, 
unless  it  belongs  to  a  special  "  exempted  " 
class,  or  unless  the  11  o'clock  rule  has  been 
suspended  by  order  of  the  house.  This  not 
unfrequently  happens  under  pressure  of  busi- 
ness, but,  as  a  rule,  members  now  get  home 
mu^h  earlier  than  under  the  old  system. 


128  PARLIAMENT 

There  used  to  be  an  interval  for  dinner,  first 
informal  and  short,  recognized  and  lengthened 
by  an  alteration  of  the  rules  in  1902,  but 
/'taken  away  in  1906.  Members  now  dine  as 
(  and  when  they  can,  but  the  house  is  apt  to 
be  very  empty  between  8  and  9.30  p.m.  On 
Fridays,  which,  until  the  later  part  of  the 
session  are  appropriated  to  discussions  on 
private  members'  bills,  the  house  meets  at  12 
and  does  not  take  opposed  business  after  5  or 
any  business  after  5.30.  Questions  are  not 
usually  asked  on  Fridays. 

Each  house  of  parliament  has  always 
guarded  with  great  jealousy  its  own  autonomy, 
its  power  of  regulating  its  own  rights,  privi- 
leges and  procedure.  Hence  has  grown  up 
the  law  of  parliament  of  which  Sir  Edward 
Coke  spoke  with  so  much  reverence  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  which  embodies 
the  rights,  usages,  practice  and  regulations 
of  each  house.  This  law  consists  partly  of 
an  unwritten  customary  law  to  be  gathered 
from  precedents,  rulings  and  decisions,  partly 
of  an  enacted  law  to  be  found  in  orders  of  the 
house.  Bentham  would  have  classified  it, 
from  another  point  of  view,  as  a  substantive 
law  of  rights  and  privileges,  and  an  adjec- 
tive law  of  procedure.  The  substantive  law 
would  include  the  rules  which  govern  the 
rights  of  each  house,  or  of  the  individual 
members  of  each  house,  in  their  relations 
to  each  other,  to  the  crown,  to  the  executive 
and  judicial  authorities  of  the  country,  and 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE      129 

to  individuals  and  bodies  outside  parlia- 
ment. The  privileges  which  are  formally 
claimed  for  the  house  of  commons  by  its 
Speaker  at  the  beginning  of  each  parliament 
bulked  large  in  the  seventeenth  century  con- 
troversies between  the  king  and  parliament, 
and  were  much,  and  often  unreasonably, 
insisted  on  by  the  commons  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  But  in  the  twentieth  century  they 
have  retired  into  the  background,  for  ques- 
tions as  to  the  relations  between  the  two 
houses  fall  under  a  different  category.  The 
cases  in  which  a  member  of  parliament,  as 
such,  can  now  claim  any  exceptional  privi- 
lege or  immunity,  are  few  and  rare.  The 
Speaker  guards  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
the  house  and  its  members,  but  is  inclined 
to  discourage  the  assertion  of  rights  which 
it  would  be  difficult  to  enforce.  "  It  has 
been  the  practice  of  the  house,"  once  said 
Mr.  Speaker  Peel,  **  to  restrain  privilege 
under  great  limitations  and  conditions." 

Into  the  details  of  parliamentary  procedure 
this  is  not  the  place  to  enter.  There  are 
venerable  forms  which  date  from  the  Planta- 
genets,  such  as  the  mode  of  giving  the  royal 
assent  to  Acts,  and  the  Norman-French 
superscriptions  which  are  placed  on  bills 
when  they  pass  from  one  house  to  the  other. 
There  are  practices  which  are  of  great  anti- 
quity, but  to  the  origin  of  which  no  precise 
date  can  be  assigned,  such  as  the  three  read- 
ings of  bills.  There  are  rules  of  etiquette 


ISO  PARLIAMENT 

which,  from  entries  in  the  journals  of  Sir 
Symonds  d'Ewes,  can  be  traced  to  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth.  There  are  curious  survivals 
which  are  full  of  significance  to  the  historical 
student,  such  as  the  formalities  observed 
when  leave  is  given  to  introduce  a  bill  into 
the  house  of  commons,  formalities  now 
occupying  a  few  seconds,  but  representing, 
in  a  compressed  and  symbolical  form,  pro- 
ceedings which,  in  the  seventeenth  century 
may  have  occupied  days  or  weeks.  There  is 
a  vast  jungle  of  rulings  and  precedents  in 
which  a  veteran  member,  even  a  ready  and 
experienced  Speaker,  may  occasionally  lose 
his  way.  There  are  a  few  cases  in  which,  as 
in  the  courts  of  law,  mistaken  application  of 
precedents  seems  to  have  swerved  procedure 
from  its  true  course.  But  the  general  prin- 
ciples are  clear  and  intelligible  enough,  and 
their  detailed  application  is  based  on  the  ex- 
perience of  many  centuries. 

The  general  principles  are  such  as  ought 
to  be  observed  by  all  deliberative  assemblies. 
There  must  be  authority  to  enforce  order  and 
decorum,  and  to  prevent  waste  of  time.  It 
is  for  the  convenience  of  members  that  they 
should  know  what  business  to  expect  when 
they  come  down  to  the  house,  and  that  they 
should  not  be  taken  by  surprise.  The  unfore- 
seen will  often  happen,  in  the  house  of  com- 
mons as  elsewhere,  but  there  ought  to  be  no 
unnecessary  departure  from  the  programme 
of  the  day.  Hence  the  importance  of  the 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE       131 

rules  as  to  notice,  rules  which  often  entrap 
an  unwary  member,  but  which  were  devised 
and  are  enforced  for  the  protection  of  his 
colleagues.  Questions  on  which  the  house 
has  to  express  an  opinion  must  be  framed  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  raise  a  definite  and 
intelligible  issue,  and  this  is  the  object  of 
the  technical  rules  as  to  amendments. 

The  general  lines  of  procedure  were  fairly 
settled  in  the  seventeenth  century.  The 
tendency  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  to 
stereotype  these  rules,  and  often  to  encum- 
ber them  with  tedious,  intricate  and  unneces- 
sary formalities.  Rulings  and  precedents 
sufficed;  standing  orders,  defining  and  alter- 
ing practice,  were  very  rare.  Of  the  ninety- 
five  standing  orders  which  now  regulate  the 
public  business  of  the  house  of  commons, 
only  three,  dealing  with  finance,  date  from 
the  eighteenth  century,  and  this  is  not  because 
the  old  orders  have  been  repealed  but  because 
very  few  were  made.  Not  until  after  the 
Reform  Act  of  1832  did  the  need  of  improving 
and  simplifying  the  procedure  of  the  house 
become  apparent  and  urgent.  Since  that 
date  there  have  been  some  fifteen  committees 
on  the  public  procedure  of  the  house,  besides 
those  devoted  to  private  bill  procedure,  and 
it  is  on  the  labours  of  these  committees  that 
the  existing  standing  orders  of  the  house 
are  mainly  based.  It  must,  however,  be 
repeated  that  the  rules  of  procedure  have 
never  been  codified.  The  standing  orders  do 


132  PARLIAMENT 

not  constitute,  and  were  never  intended  to 
constitute,  a  code.  They  merely  supplement, 
explain,  and  alter,  in  a  few  particulars,  the 
customary  law  of  the  house. 

It  was  the  great  and  rapid  growth  of  par- 
liamentary business,  and  especially  of  the 
business  for  which  the  executive  government 
must  assume  responsibility,  that  brought 
the  reform  of  procedure  to  the  forefront  after 
1832.  At  a  later  date  the  artistic  develop- 
ment of  what  is  known  as  obstruction  made 
it  necessary  to  confer  on  the  Speaker,  the 
chairman,  and  the  house  larger  powers  of 
dealing  with  deliberate  efforts  to  clog  the 
working  of  the  parliamentary  machine. 

Under  the  old  practice  of  the  house  the 
Speaker  and  the  chairman  of  committees  had, 
and  exercised,  powers  for  checking  irrele- 
vance, prolixity,  repetition  and  obstruction, 
for  preventing  the  abuse  of  dilatory  motions, 
and  for  maintaining  order  and  decorum.  It  is 
these  powers  that  have  now  been  defined 
and  strengthened  by  standing  orders.  If  a 
member  is  guilty  of  grossly  disorderly  con- 
duct, the  Speaker  or  the  chairman  of  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  house  can  order  him  to 
withdraw  from  the  house.  If  a  member 
disregards  the  authority  of  the  chair,  or 
abuses  the  rules  of  the  house  by  persistently 
and  wilfully  obstructing  its  business,  he  can 
be  '*  named  "  for  the  offence  by  the  Speaker 
or  by  the  chairman  of  a  committee  of  the 
whole  house,  and  the  house  can,  on  motion 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE       133 

made,  make  an  order  suspending  him  from 
the  service  of  the  house  for  the  rest  of  the 
session.  Orders  of  this  kind,  when  made  by 
the  house,  or  by  the  Speaker  or  chairman, 
are  enforced,  if  necessary,  by  the  serjeant-at- 
arms  with  such  assistance  as  may  be  required. 
In  the  case  of  grave  disorder  arising  in  the 
house  the  Speaker  may,  if  he  thinks  it  neces- 
sary, adjourn  the  house  without  question  put, 
or  suspend  the  sitting. 

These,  however,  are  exceptional  powers, 
only  exercised  in  grave  and  rare  emergencies. 
To  facilitate  the  despatch  of  business  under 
normal  conditions  other  standing  orders  have 
been  required  and  have  been  made. 

It  may  be  stated  in  general  terms  that  the 
main  problems  of  parliamentary  procedure 
under  existing  conditions  are  two;  on  the 
one  hand,  how  to  find  time  within  limited 
parliamentary  hours  for  the  growing  mass  of 
business  which  devolves  on  the  government; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  how  to  reconcile  the 
legitimate  demands  of  the  government  with 
the  legitimate  rights  of  the  minority,  the 
despatch  of  business  with  the  duties  of  par- 
liament as  a  grand  inquest  of  the  nation  at 
which  all  public  questions  of  real  importance 
ought  to  find  opportunity  for  adequate  dis- 
cussion. These  are  the  problems  to  the 
solution  of  which  successive  amendments  of 
standing  orders  have  been  directed. 

In  the  first  place,  the  time  appropriated 
to  government  business  has  been  largely 


134  PARLIAMENT 

increased.  Under  the  existing  standing  orders 
government  business  has  precedence  at  every 
sitting  except  after  a  quarter  past  eight  on 
Tuesday  and  Wednesday  and  at  the  sitting 
on  Friday.  In  the  earlier  part  of  the  session, 
but  not  in  the  later,  private  members'  motions 
are  taken  on  Tuesday  and  Wednesday  even- 
ings, and  private  members'  bills  on  Fridays, 
but  debates  on  opposed  private  bills  (not 
private  members'  bills  but  bills  dealing  with 
railway  projects  and  the  like),  and  the  dis- 
cussion of  urgent  matters  of  public  impor- 
tance under  motions  for  adjournment,  may 
occupy  Tuesday  and  Wednesday  evenings 
to  the  displacement  of  private  members' 
motions.  Moreover,  the  exigencies  of  govern- 
ment business  may,  under  special  orders  of 
the  house,  make  further  encroachments  on 
the  opportunities  afforded  to  private  mem- 
bers for  initiating  discussions.  It  must  be  re- 
membered, however,  that,  as  explained  in  a 
previous  chapter,  these  are  not  the  only,  or 
indeed,  the  chief  opportunities  for  the  exer- 
cise of  the  rights  of  criticism  which  belong 
to  private  members. 

In  the  next  place  it  has  been  found  neces- 
sary to  provide  machinery  for  bringing  de- 
bates to  a  close  by  the  operation  of  the  clos- 
ure, a  term  borrowed  from  France.  Under 
one  of  the  standing  orders  a  member  rising 
in  his  place  may  claim  to  move  "  That  the 
question  be  now  put,"  and,  unless  it  appears 
to  the  chair  that  the  motion  is  an  abuse  of 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE       135 

the  rules  of  the  house  or  an  infringement  of 
the  rights  of  the  minority,  this  preliminary 
question  must  be  put  forthwith,  and,  if  it  is 
carried,  the  original  question  is  put  forthwith 
and  decided  without  amendment  or  debate. 
But  a  motion  for  the  closure  cannot  be 
made  unless  the  Speaker  or  the  chairman  or 
deputy  chairman  of  ways  and  means  is  in 
the  chair,  and  is  not  carried  unless  it  appears 
on  a  division  that  not  less  than  100  members 
voted  in  its  support.  The  effect  is  to  leave 
to  the  chair  much  discretion  as  to  the  time 
and  circumstances  in  which  closure  should, 
with  propriety,  be  granted. 

By  recent  amendments  of  standing  orders 
the  machinery  of  closure  has  been  extended 
to  standing  committees  on  bills,  and,  when  a 
bill  is  being  debated  in  a  committee  of  the 
whole  house,  or  at  the  report  stage,  the  occu- 
pant of  the  chair  may  be  clothed  with  powers 
for  selecting  the  particular  amendments  to 
be  discussed. 

But  in  recent  years  the  machinery  of  the 
ordinary  closure  has  been  found  inadequate 
for  getting  through  the  most  important 
government  bills  of  the  session,  and,  at  the 
instance  of,  but  under  protest  from,  each 
party  in  turn,  more  drastic  measures  have 
been  adopted.  They  take  the  form  of  special 
orders  of  the  house  for  the  allocation  of  time 
on  particular  bills,  are  sometimes  described 
as  "closure  by  compartments,"  but  are  more 
popularly  known  as  "the  guillotine."  So 


136  PARLIAMENT 

much  time  is  allotted  for  the  discussion  of  a 
clause  or  a  group  of  clauses,  or  a  particular 
stage,  of  a  bill,  and,  at  the  expiration  of  this 
time,  the  necessary  question  or  series  of 
questions  is  put,  all  remaining  amendments, 
except  government  amendments,  being  ex- 
cluded. Attempts  are  always  made  so  to 
arrange  the  time  as  to  afford  opportunity  for 
discussing  all  the  more  serious  issues  raised 
by  the  bill,  but  these  attempts  are  usually 
defeated  by  the  prolongation  of  debate  on 
minor  points.  No  one  defends  these  orders 
as  satisfactory.  Neither  party,  when  in 
power,  has  found  itself  able  to  do  without 
them. 

A  considerable  amount  of  time  in  the  house 
of  commons  is  occupied  by  the  taking  of 
divisions.  The  procedure  is  familiar  to  those 
who  visit  the  house.  A  matter  requiring  de- 
cision is  decided  by  means  of  a  question  put 
from  the  chair  on  a  motion  proposed  by  a 
member.  When  the  question  arises  in  the 
house,  or  in  a  committee  of  the  whole  house, 
the  Speaker  or  chairman  expresses  his  opinion 
as  to  whether  the  ayes  or  the  noes  have  it. 
If  his  opinion  is  challenged  by  dissentient 
cries,  he  allows  two  minutes  to  elapse,  in 
order  to  give  time  for  members,  who  are  sum- 
moned by  the  ringing  of  electric  bells,  to 
assemble  from  other  parts  of  the  building, 
and  then  puts  the  question  again.  If  his 
opinion  is  again  challenged  he  directs  the 
ayes  to  go  to  the  right  and  the  noes  to  the 


SITTINGS  AND  PROCEDURE      137 

left,  and  appoints  two  tellers  for  each.  The 
ayes  and  noes  then  pass  through  their  re- 
spective division  lobbies,  on  each  side  of 
the  house,  their  names  are  taken  down  by  the 
division  clerks,  and  they  are  counted  by  the 
tellers,  who  announce  the  result  at  the  table 
of  the  house.  When  the  "  guillotine "  is 
working,  the  number  of  possible  divisions 
on  a  series  of  questions  is  sometimes  large, 
and  to  an  outsider  the  process  of  tramping 
through  the  lobbies  in  successive  divisions, 
when  the  result  is  a  foregone  conclusion, 
might  seem  to  be  a  waste  of  time.  But  the 
experienced  member  knows  better.  Division 
lists  are  duly  chronicled  and  recorded,  and 
constituents  measure  the  diligence  of  their 
member  in  the  performance  of  his  parlia- 
mentary duties  by  the  number  of  divisions 
in  which  he  takes  part.  Attendance  at  an 
unnecessary  division  is  imputed  to  him  for 
righteousness,  and  guillotine  nights  are  useful 
to  him  in  this  way. 

The  time  occupied  by  a  division  has  re- 
cently been  somewhat  shortened  by  an 
improvement  of  the  machinery,  but  of  course 
such  time-saving  arrangements,  useful  as 
they  are,  produce  no  appreciable  effect  on 
the  congestion  of  the  business  of  the  house. 
For  that  congestion  devolution  is  the  remedy 
most  often  advocated.  Some  relief  has  been 
given  by  sending  bills  "  upstairs  "  to  have 
their  details  discussed  by  what  may  be  called 
true  committees  as  distinguished  from  those 


138  PARLIAMENT 

"  committees  of  the  whole  house  "  which  are 
really  the  house  itself.  But  the  adoption 
of  this  expedient  in  the  case  of  the  class  of 
measures  which  occupy  most  time  encounters 
much  opposition.  Proposals  for  devolution 
to  bodies  other  than  the  parliament  at 
Westminster  raise  issues  too  grave  and  con- 
troversial to  be  discussed  where. 


CHAPTER  VI 

ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE 

UNDER  the  head  of  organization  two  dis- 
tinct subjects  may  be  legitimately  treated. 
/'One  is  the  staff  of  the  house,  and  the  con- 
stitution of  its  committees.  The  other  is  . 
the  arrangements  and  understandings  which 
regulate  the  relations  of  the  house  to  the  exec- 
utive government,  and  the  relations  to  each 
other  of  the  political  parties  and  groups 
represented  in  the  house. 

In  the  earliest  days  of  the  house  of  com- 
mons, when  its  functions  were  mainly  those  of 
a  petitioning  body,  it  needed  a  spokesman, ! 
and  some  member  of  the  house  must  have  been 
selected  for  this  purpose.  The  ordinary  list  of 
Speakers  begins  with  Sir  Thomas  Hungerf  ord, ' 
who  held  the  office  in  the  last  parliament  of 
Edward  III,  but  there  were  probably  others 
before  him  with  similar  functions.  At  the 
beginning  of  each  parliament  a  member  of 
the  house  of  commons  is  elected  Speaker  of 
the  house,  and  his  tenure  of  office,  unless  ter- 
minated by  resignation  or  death,  continues 
during  that  parliament.  The  election  is 
made  by  the  house,  subject  to  the  approval 
139 


140  PARLIAMENT 

of  the  king,  but  that  approval  has  never  been 
withheld  since  Charles  II  objected  to  the 
appointment  of  Sir  Edward  Seymour  in  1679. 
In  the  earlier  days  of  parliament  the  voice 
of  the  king  in  the  appointment  of  Speaker 
was  more  of  a  reality;  he  was  regarded  as  an 
officer  of  the  king  and  a  link  between  the  king 
and  the  house;  and  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury the  conflict  between  his  duties  to  the 
king  and  his  duties  to  the  house  sometimes 
placed  him  in  serious  difficulties.  The  eman- 
cipation of  the  Speaker  from  the  control  of 
the  king,  the  severance  of  his  connection  with 
party  during  his  tenure  of  office,  and  the  evo- 
lution of  the  non-partisan  Speaker,  armed 
with  great  powers,  wielding  great  authority, 
and  exercising  his  powers  and  authority  in  a 
judicial  and  impartial  spirit,  have  been  ad- 
mirably described  by  Mr.  Porritt  in  his 
Unreformed  House  of  Commons.  The  modern 
Speaker  is  sometimes  elected  in  the  first  in- 
stance by  a  party  vote,  but  he  is  independent 
of  party,  his  tenure  of  office  is  not  affected 
by  a  change  of  ministry,  and,  if  he  desires  to 
continue  his  services  in  a  new  parliament,  the 
practice  is  to  re-elect  him,  whatever  party 
may  be  in  power. 

The  Speaker  is  the  representative  and 
spokesman  of  the  house  in  its  collective 
capacity;  he  presides  at  meetings  of  the  house; 
and  he  declares  and  interprets  its  law.  He 
does  not  claim  power  to  make  or  alter  that 
law,  merely  to  be  its  exponent.  But  where 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE    141 

precedents,  rulings  and  the  orders  of  the 
house  are  insufficient  or  uncertain  guides,  he 
has  to  consider  what  course  would  be  most 
consistent  with  the  usages,  traditions  and 
dignity  of  the  house,  and  the  rights  and  inter- 
ests of  its  members,  and  on  these  points  his 
advice  is  usually  followed,  and  his  decisions 
are  very  rarely  questioned.  Much,  no  doubt, 
depends  on  the  personal  character  and  quali- 
ties of  the  Speaker,  his  experience,  his  readi- 
ness, his  tact,  his  knowledge  of  the  ways  and 
habits  of  members;  but  for  many  generations 
the  deference  habitually  paid  to  the  occupant 
of  the  chair  has  been  the  theme  of  admiring 
comment  by  foreign  observers. 

The  Speaker's  symbol  of  office  is  the  mace, 
which  is  carried  before  him  when  he  formally 
leaves  and  enters  the  house,  and  remains  on 
the  table  while  he  occupies  the  chair.  He  has 
an  official  residence  in  the  palace  of  West- 
minster, and  an  official  salary  which,  like  the 
salaries  of  judges,  is  not  paid  out  of  the  votes 
but  is  charged  on  the  consolidated  fund  and  v 
therefore  cannot  be  questioned  when  the  an- 
nual votes  are  under  discussion.  When  he 
retires  from  office  he  usually  receives  a  pen- 
sion and  a  peerage. 

Besides  the  Speaker,  two  other  members 
of  the  house  of  commons  receive  salaries  as  „ 
officials  of  the  house.  These  are  the  chairman 
and  the  deputy-chairman  of  ways  and  means, 
who  ordinarily  take  the  chair  at  meetings  of 
committees  of  the  whole  house,  and  each  of 


142  PARLIAMENT 

whom  can  also  act  as  deputy  speaker  during 
the  temporary  absence  of  the  Speaker.  They 
are  appointed  by  the  house  at  the  beginning 
of  each  parliament,  for  the  duration  of  that 
parliament.  The  chairman  of  ways  and 
means  is  charged  with  some  important  duties 
in  connection  with  private  bills. 

The  house  of  commons  has  its  permanent 
official  staff,  corresponding  to  the  official 
staff  of  the  departments  of  the  executive 
government,  the  staff  which  constitutes  the 
permanent  civil  service  of  the  country.  At 
the  head  of  the  staff  of  clerks  is  the  clerk 
of  the  house,  whose  office  dates  from  the 
fourteenth  century.  He  is  appointed  by  the 
king  on  the  nomination  of  the  prime  minister, 
and  he  is  entitled  to  hold  his  office  for  life. 
He  and  the  two  clerk  assistants  are  the  wigged 
and  gowned  officials  who  sit  at  the  table  of 
the  house  when  the  Speaker  is  in  the  chair, 
and  who  are  collectively  known  as  the  clerks 
at  the  table.  When  the  Speaker  leaves  the 
chair  for  a  sitting  of  the  committee  of  the 
whole  house  the  clerk  of  the  house  has  to 
vacate  his  seat  also,  and  it  is  taken  by  the 
•chairman  of  ways  and  means  or  his  deputy. 
The  serjeant-at-arms,  who  is  also  appointed 
by  the  king,  holds  an  ancient  office  in  the 
house  and  is  a  picturesque  adjunct  of  its  pro- 
ceedings. But,  besides  his  ceremonial  func- 
tions, he  has  responsible  duties  to  perform, 
and  may  be  treated  as  representing  the  execu- 
tive authority  of  the  house.  He  sees  to  the 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE    143 

maintenance  of  order  within  the  precincts 
of  the  house,  regulates  the  admission  of 
strangers,  and,  as  housekeeper,  looks  after 
its  domestic  staff  and  arrangements. 

The  staff  arrangements  of  the  house  of 
lords  are  somewhat  different.  The  lord  chan- 
cellor performs  the  functions  assigned  in 
the  house  of  commons  to  the  Speaker,  but 
has  not  the  same  powers  for  maintaining 
order  and  controlling  the  course  of  debates. 
There  is  a  lord  chairman  of  committees,  who 
presides  over  committees  of  the  whole  house, 
and  who  exercises  considerable  control  over 
private  bill  legislation.  The  clerk  of  parlia- 
ments is  the  head  of  the  staff  of  permanent 
clerks,  signifies  the  assent  of  the  king  to 
legislation,  and  certifies  with  his  own  hand 
the  accuracy  of  Acts  when  passed.  The 
gentleman  usher  of  the  black  rod,  who  has 
a  yeoman  usher  to  assist  him,  summons  the 
commons  when  their  attendance  is  required 
in  the  house  of  lords,  and  performs  certain 
other  functions,  mostly  ceremonial. 

The  house  of  commons  delegates  less  of 
its  work  to  committees  than  most  legislatures, 
for,  as  has  been  previously  explained,  the  so- 
called  "committees  of  the  whole  house"  are 
not  committees  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
term.  But  much  work  is  done  by  many  genu- 
ine committees.  These  include  the  standing 
committees  on  public  bills,  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made  in  a  previous  chapter, 
the  select  committees  on  public  bills  or  other 


144  PARLIAMENT 

matters,  and  the  small  committees  on  private 
bills.  They  also  include  the  sessional  com- 
mittees which  the  house  appoints  every 
session  for  the  transaction  of  particular 
branches  of  its  business,  such  as  the  com- 
mittee of  public  accounts;  the  committee  of 
selection  which  appoints  the  members  of 
many  committees  and  makes  arrangements 
for  the  distribution  of  their  business;  the  local 
legislation  committee,  whose  functions  with 
respect  to  private  bills  have  been  explained  in 
a  previous  chapter;  and  the  committee  on 
kitchen  and  refreshment  rooms,  whose  func- 
tions require  no  explanation. 

These  committees  usually  sit  in  the  morn- 
ings during  hours  when  the  house  is  not 
sitting,  and  attendance  at  them  imposes 
a  severe  tax  on  the  time  of  many  members 
and  adds  materially  to  their  labours.  The 
work  done  by  them,  and  especially  by  their 
chairmen,  is  of  the  highest  value,  and  is 
appreciated  by  the  house,  though  it  does  not 
come  much  before  the  eye.  There  is  no 
more  useful  member  of  the  house  than  a 
competent,  tactful  and  painstaking  chair- 
man of  committees. 

The  other  aspect  of  the  organization  of  the 
house  is  of  greater  interest.  What  is  it  that 
makes  the  house  a  living  organism,  instead 
of  a  congeries  of  atoms?  What  are  the 
forces  which  discipline  its  members,  and 
regulate  and  co-ordinate  its  daily  work? 
The  answers  to  these  questions  are  to  be 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE    145 


found  in  the  consideration  of  the 
tem  and  the  party_sysiem,  two  characteristic- 
ally English  products,  which,  so  far  as  they 
exist  elsewhere,  owe  their  origin  to  transplan- 
tation from  English  soil,  and  which,  according 
to  the  English  view,  are  inseparable  from  each 
other.  The  stages  by  which  these  two  sys- 
tems have  grown  up  in  England  and  have 
developed  into  their  present  form,  have  been 
described  in  many  admirable  treatises,  and 
it  is  impossible  here  to  do  more  than  glance 
at  some  of  their  leading  features. 

The  great  struggle  of  the  seventeenth 
century  between  the  king  and  parliament 
resulted  in  a  compromise,  under  which  execu- 
tive authority  was  to  remain  with  the  king, 
but  was  to  be  exercised  through  ministers, 
having  seats  in  parliament,  and  dependent 
for  their  position  on  the  support  of  the 
dominant  party  in  the  house  that  provided 
the  supplies  without  which  government  could 
not  be  carried  on.  The  executive  authority, 
the  power  of  governing  the  country,  was,  in 
fact,  put  in  commission,  and  it  was  arranged 
that  the  commissioners  should  be  members 
of  the  legislative  body  to  whom  they  are 
responsible.  The  process  by  which  this 
change  was  carried  out  has  been  described 
as  a  "noiseless  revolution,"  and  is  not  to 
be  found  embodied  in  any  Acts  of  parlia- 
ment. It  may  be  treated  as  having  begun 
under  William  III  between  1693  and  1696, 
but  it  extended  over  a  long  period  of 


146  PARLIAMENT 

time.  In  its  early  stages  experiments  were 
made,  such  as  the  exclusion  of  office-holders 
from  parliament,  experiments  which,  if  they 
had  succeeded,  would  have  resulted  in  the 
establishment  of  an  entirely  different  system, 
more  resembling  that  set  up  afterwards  in 
the  United  States. 

The  process  was  expedited  by  the  fact  that 
during  nearly  half  a  century  the  throne  was 
occupied  by  kings  who  were  foreigners  in 
their  origin,  in  their  habits,  in  their  modes 
of  thought,  in  then*  interests  and  in  their 
language,  and  who  were  therefore  compelled 
to  rely  on,  and  to  act  through,  ministers 
drawn  from  and  representing  the  views  of  the 
great  English  families  who  had  been  mainly 
instrumental  in  bringing  them  over.  George 
III,  who  was  born  and  bred  in  England,  and 
trained  by  a  Scot,  did  not  labour  under 
similar  disadvantages,  and  succeeded  for 
some  years  in  re-establishing,  by  indirect 
means,  a  system  of  personal  government  by 
the  king.  But  the  reins  dropped  from  his 
hands  long  before  the  end  of  his  life,  and  have 
not  been  taken  back  by  his  successors.  The 
king,  as  an  individual,  has,  in  the  region  of 
executive  government,  receded  into  the  back- 
ground. His  office  remains  as  a  potent 
symbol  of  dignity,  authority,  and  continuity. 
In  his  individual  capacity  he  can  exercise 
enormous  influence  by  wise  and  timely  coun- 
sel. But  he  is  not  responsible  for  the  acts  or 
defaults  of  his  ministers.  If  he  should  thrust 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE    147 

his  personal  authority  into  the  foreground  he 
would  throw  the  machine  out  of  gear. 

What  is  now  called  the  cabinet  system  of 
government  was  first  described,  accurately 
and  graphically,  by  Walter  Bagehot,  in  Lord 
Palmerston's  time,  and  the  main  lines  of  his 
description  still  hold  good.  The  system  thus 
described  was  built  up,  not  by  legislation,  but 
by  understandings  and  conventions,  is  always 
liable  to  modification,  and  assumes  different 
aspects  from  different  points  of  view.  Queen 
Victoria  was  an  admirable  constitutional 
sovereign,  but  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
she  would  ever  have  accepted  Bagehot's 
theory  of  the  constitution. 

The  essential  features  of  the  cabinet  system 
of  government,  those  which  distinguish  it  \/ 
from  the  presidential  system  of  the  United 
States,  and  from  what  is  called  constitutional 
monarchy  in  Germany  and  Austria,  are  that 
the  king's  principal  ministers,  the  men  who 
are  responsible  for  the  government  of  the 
country,  must  be  members  of  parliament, 
and  must  resign  office  if  they  are  unable  to 
command  the  confidence  of  the  dominant 
party  in  the  house  of  commons.  They  are 
the  link  between  the  executive  authority  and 
the  legislative  authority.  On  the  one  hand 
they  are  the  king's  ministers,  exercising  their 
powers  in  the  king's  name,  and  it  is  by  them, 
and  not  by  either  house  of  parliament,  or  by 
any  committee  of  either  house,  that  the 
government  of  the  country  is  carried  on.  On 


148  PARLIAMENT 

the  other  hand  they  are  members  of  the 
legislature,  liable  at  any  moment,  so  long  as 
parliament  is  sitting,  to  be  called  to  account 
for  their  actions  by  the  house  to  which  they 
belong,  and  dependent  for  their  tenure  of 
office,  technically  on  the  king's  pleasure,  but 
practically  on  the  good-will  of  the  house  of 
commons.  The  most  important  of  these 
ministers  constitute  the  cabinet,  a  body  of 
about  twenty  persons,  having  the  prime  min- 
ister as  their  chief.  The  cabinet  has  been 
described  as  a  committee,  but,  if  this  descrip- 
tion is  to  be  accepted,  they  are  a  very  informal 
and  anomalous  committee.  They  are  not  a 
committee  of  either  house  of  parliament,  or 
a  joint  committee  of  the  two  houses,  for  they 
are  not  appointed  by  and  do  not  report  their 
proceedings  to  either  house.  The  members 
of  the  cabinet  must  be  members  of  the  privy 
council,  and  thus  the  cabinet  may  be  treated 
as  a  committee  of  privy  councillors.  But  it 
is  not  a  committee  of  the  privy  council,  for 
it  is  not  appointed  by  and  does  not  report  its 
proceedings  to  that  body.  In  fact  the  cabinet 
does  not  report  its  proceedings  at  all.  Its 
meetings  are  private,  and  are  held  usually  in 
Downing  Street,  but  often  at  other  places, 
such  as  the  prime  minister's  room  in  the  house 
of  commons.  It  has  no  secretary  or  clerks, 
keeps  no  record  of  its  proceedings,  and  treats 
them  as  matters  of  secrecy,  which  it  is  a 
breach  of  confidence  for  any  member  of  its 
body  to  divulge,  except  by  permission  of  its 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE    149 

chief.  The  prime  jninister,  who  is  the  chief 
of  the  cabinet,  is~appomted  by  the  king, 
but  the  king's  selection  is  practically  limited 
to  some  one  of  a  very  small  number  of  persons. 
The  person  selected  must  be  capable  of  lead- 
ing the  political  party  to  which  he  belongs, 
and  the  selection  is  often  indicated  by  the 
public  opinion  of  the  country.  The  other 
members  of  the  cabinet,  being  the  king's  min- 
isters, are  also  appointed  by  him,  and,  tech- 
nically, may  be  dismissed  by  him.  But  they 
are  practically  selected  by  the  prime  minister, 
who  takes  care  to  choose  persons  who  are  like- 
ly to  command  the  confidence  of  his  party  and 
to  conduct  the  business  of  the  government 
efficiently  in  parliament.  If  a  member  of  the 
cabinet,  or  a  minister  who  is  not  in  the  cabi- 
net, finds  himself  unable  to  reconcile  his  politi- 
cal opinions  on  some  vital  point  with  those  of 
his  chief,  he  resigns  his  office,  and  a  minister" 
whose  conduct  or  action  has  incurred  the 
disapproval  of  parliament  has  sometimes  been 
compelled  to  resign.  But  the  experiment 
once  tried  by  William  IV  of  dismissing  his 
ministers  by  the  exercise  of  personal  will  is 
not  likely  to  be  repeated. 

What  is  called  the  solidarity  of  the  cabinet, 
by  which  is  meant  their  collective  responsi- 
bility for  the  acts  and  defaults  of  individual 
members  of  their  body,  and  the  special 
responsibility  of  the  prime  minister,  as  their 
chief,  for  their  acts,  and  even  for  their  words, 
is  a  principle  which  has  been  developed  by  a 


150  PARLIAMENT 

process  of  slow  growth,  and  the  application  of 
which  is  still  liable  to  be  a  matter  of  con- 
troversy and  doubt.  Much  depends  on  per- 
sonal character,  time  and  circumstances. 
There  have  been  times  when  a  powerful  per- 
sonality, like  that  of  Peel,  has  dominated  and 
controlled  the  administration  in  all  its  branch- 
es. At  other  times  the  prime  minister's  reins 
have  been  held  more  loosely,  and  the  work  of 
government  has  tended  to  fall  into  separate, 
almost  watertight,  compartments.  There 
have  been  grave  questions  which  have  been 
treated  as  open  because  the  members  of  the 
cabinet  could  not  come  to  an  agreement  about 
them.  On  other  questions,  the  extent  to 
which  a  member  of  the  cabinet  should,  in 
the  public  interest,  subordinate  his  convic- 
tions to  those  of  his  chief  or  his  colleagues 
is  a  matter  for  the  individual  conscience.  If 
the  strain  is  too  severe,  the  cabinet  may  shed 
some  of  its  members,  as  in  1867  and  again 
in  1903.  But,  speaking  generally,  it  is  con- 
sidered to  be  the  duty  of  members  of  the 
cabinet,  and  of  members  of  the  government 
who  are  outside  the  cabinet,  to  present  a 
united  front  in  dealing  with  all  the  more 
important  questions  that  come  before  parlia- 
ment. 

The  ministry,  the  cabinet,  must  govern. 
But  how  can  they  control  the  body  on  whose 
favour  their  existence  depends?  How  can 
they  prevent  the  house  of  commons  from 
being  an  unorganized,  uncontrollable,  irre- 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE    151 

sponsible  mob?  The  English  answer  is,  by 
party  machinery.  It  is  this  machinery  that 
secures  the  necessary  discipline.  The  cabinet 
system  presupposes  a  party  system,  and, 
more  than  that,  a  two-party  system.  This 
does  not  mean  that  there  may  not  be  individ- 
ual members  of  the  legislature  independent  of 
party,  or  that  there  may  not  be  more  than 
two  parties  in  each  house.  But  it  does  mean 
that  there  must  be  two  main  parties,  one 
represented  by  the  treasury  bench,  the  bench 
on  which  the  ministers  sit,  and  the  other  by 
the  front  opposition  bench,  and  that  the  party 
represented  by  the  treasury  bench  must  be 
able,  with  or  without  its  allies,  to  control  the 
majority  of  the  house  of  commons.  The 
system  also  implies,  for  its  efficient  working, 
an  experienced  and  responsible  opposition, 
a  body  of  men  whose  leaders  have  held 
office  in  the  past  and  may  look  forward  to 
holding  office  in  the  future.  The  phrase  "his 
majesty's  opposition,"  which  was  invented  by 
John  Cam  Hobhouse  (Lord  Broughton)  in 
the  early  part  of  the  last  century,  means  a 
body  of  men  who  may,  if  the  balance  of  party 
power  shifts,  become,  or  be  willing  to  follow, 
his  majesty's  ministers. 

In  the  eighteenth  century,  and  later,  the 
"influence"  which  held  the  dominant  party 
together  and  secured  their  votes,  took  the 
gross  and  material  form  of  places  and  bribes. 
The  methods  have  been  changed,  but  traces 
of  them  still  remain.  It  is  said  that  an 


152  PARLIAMENT 

intelligent  foreigner,  anxious  to  obtain  infor- 
mation about  the  working  of  our  parliamen- 
tary system,  recently  asked  a  minister  what 
was  the  official  title  of  the  person  described 
to  him  as  the  chief  government  whip.  "The 
patronage  secretary  of  the  treasury, "  was  the 
reply.  "Ah,"  he  said,  with  a  sagacious 
smile,  "Now  I  understand,  you  need  not  tell 
me  any  more."  Of  course  he  was  under  a 
misapprehension,  but  intelligent  foreigners 
are  full  of  half-knowledge. 

What  does  the  expression  "whip"  mean 
in  parliamentary  language,  and  what  is  its 
origin?  The  metaphor  is  borrowed  from  the 
hunting-field,  and  its  parliamentary  applica- 
tion can  be  traced  to  Burke.  In  May  1769 
there  was  a  great  debate  in  the  house  of 
commons  on  the  petition  against  the  return 
of  Colonel  Luttrell  for  Westminster  in  the 
place  of  Alderman  Wilkes,  who  had  been 
expelled  from  the  house  by  its  order.  The 
king's  ministers  made  great  efforts  to  bring 
their  followers  together  from  all  quarters  for 
this  debate.  Burke,  who  took  part  in  the 
debate,  referred  to  these  efforts,  and  described 
how  ministers  had  sent  for  their  friends  to 
the  north  and  to  Paris,  whipping  them  in, 
than  which,  he  said,  there  could  not  be  a 
better  phrase.  The  phrase  thus  adopted  and 
commended  by  Burke  caught  the  public 
fancy  and  soon  became  popular.  In  the 
Annual  Register  of  1772  we  find  a  sketch  of 
an  imaginary  politician  of  whom  it  is  said 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE    153 

that  "he  was  first  a  whipper-in  to  the  Prem- 
ier, and  then  became  Premier  himself." 
Whipper-in  was  ultimately  abbreviated  into 
whip. 

i  The  whips  are  the  agents  through  whom 
party  machinery  is  used  for  the  conduct  of 
the  business  of  the  house.  They  are  the  eyes 
and  ears  of  their  party  chief.  It  is  their 
business  to  try  and  discern  the  direction  in 
which  sections  of  opinion  are  moving,  to  hear 
any  mutterings  of  discontent,  and  to  suggest 
methods  for  mitigating  or  removing  it. 

The  government  whips  are  paid  officials, 
with  official  titles  which  do  not  indicate  their 
real  work.  The  chief  of  them  is  a  secretary 
of  the  treasury,  others  are  junior  lords  of  the 
treasury,  and  one  of  them  often  holds  a  post 
in  the  king's  household.  They  have  an  office 
in  Downing  Street  besides  their  official  rooms 
at  the  house  of  commons,  and  perform  im- 
portant duties  in  connection  with  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  business  of  the  house.  They 
sketch  out  a  forecast  of  the  probable  work  of 
the  session,  or  of  a  part  of  the  session,  esti- 
mating the  time  which  each  item  of  work  will 
occupy  and  how  much  time  can  be  spared 
for  it.  The  chief  whip  settles,  under  instruc- 
tions from  the  prime  minister,  the  programme 
of  government  business  for  each  sitting  of  the 
house  of  commons,  and  sees  that  the  neces- 
sary notices  are  handed  in  at  the  table  of 
the  house.  He  ascertains,  by  communication 
with  the  whips  of  the  other  parties,  what  kind 


154  PARLIAMENT 

of  opposition  the  items  on  the  programme  are 
likely  to  encounter,  and  how  many  and  which 
of  them  have  a  reasonable  chance  of  being 
reached  and  disposed  of  before  the  end  of  the 
sitting.  He  also  arranges  in  the  same  way 
the  days  on  which  it  would  be  most  conven- 
ient to  take  particular  votes  of  supply,  and 
how  committees  appointed  by  the  house  are  to 
be  constituted  so  as  to  give  a  fair  representa- 
tion to  various  sections  and  interests.  These 
are  the  arrangements  which  are  referred  to 
when  members  of  either  of  the  two  front 
benches  talk  of  communications  passing 
through  the  usual  channels.  It  is  by  means 
of  arrangements  and  understandings  of  this 
kind,  carried  on  through  the  agency  of  the 
government  whips,  that  a  great  part  of  the 
business  of  the  house  is  conducted,  and  it 
could  not  be  got  through  in  any  other  manner. 

The  whips  of  the  other  parties  do  not  enjoy 
the  advantage  of  official  posts  or  official 
salaries.  There  are  at  present  three  of  these 
parties  in  the  house,  each  with  whips  of  its 
own:  the  regular  opposition,  whose  leaders 
are  on  the  front  opposition  bench;  the  Irish 
nationalist  party;  and  the  labour  party. 

During  the  session  the  whips  of  the  several 
parties  send  round  notices,  which  are  also 
sometimes  called  "whips,"  warning  the  mem- 
bers of  their  party  when  important  divisions 
are  expected,  telling  them  at  what  hour  the 
division  will  probably  take  place,  and  express- 
ing a  hope  that  they  will  be  in  attendance  at 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE    155 

that  time.  If  a  member  wishes  to  withdraw 
from  his  party,  he  signifies  his  desire  not  to  re- 
ceive these  notices  from  its  whip.  He  may,  of 
course,  if  he  pleases,  declare  his  independence 
of  party  by  declining  to  receive  any  party 
whip.  By  so  doing  he  sometimes  increases 
his  chance  of  a  hearing  in  the  house,  but 
usually  endangers  his  seat. 

These  party  arrangements  make  it  easier 
for  a  member  to  perform  his  parliamentary 
duties.  He  cannot  be  expected  to  stay  long 
in  the  house  itself:  he  has  quite  enough  to 
occupy  him  in  the  committee  room,  in  the 
library,  in  the  smoking  room,  on  the  terrace, 
or  elsewhere.  But  when  the  division  bell 
rings  he  hurries  to  the  house,  and  is  told  by 
his  whip  whether  he  is  an  "Aye"  or  a  "No." 
When  a  division  takes  place  on  party  lines, 
the  party  whips  act  as  tellers.  When  they  do 
not,  members  understand  and,  if  necessary, 
are  told  by  their  whips  that  they  can  vote 
as  they  please,  irrespectively  of  party  obliga- 
tions. Requests  that  members  may  be  thus 
freed  from  party  obligations  are  not  infre- 
quently made,  and  there  are  a  good  many 
occasions  on  which  they  can  be  properly  and 
usefully  granted.  But  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  open  questions  are  really  popular. 
A  house  is  never  more  interesting  than  when 
members  are  left  free  to  vote  according  to 
their  individual  consciences  and  convictions, 
and  never  more  puzzled.  Each  member  has 
to  think  and  decide  for  himself,  which  is 


156  PARLIAMENT 

always  troublesome.  Not  that  a  member 
is  a  mere  pawn  in  the  game,  far  from  it,  but 
the  number  of  questions  which  even  a  member 
of  parliament  has  leisure  and  capacity  to 
think  out  for  himself  is  necessarily  limited. 
And  it  is  only  through  machinery  of  the  kind 
described  that  a  member  of  parliament  can 
reconcile  his  independence  as  a  rational  being 
with  the  efficiency  of  a  disciplined  and  organ- 
ized body. 

It  is  not  merely,  and  indeed  not  mainly, 
through  the  action  of  the  whips  that  party 
discipline  is  maintained.  The  pressure  of 
public  opinion,  and  of  the  opinion  of  consti- 
tuents in  particular,  makes  itself  felt  in  many 
ways,  and  is,  as  a  rule,  adverse  to  those  who 
wobble  and  to  those  who  are  slack.  It  was 
in  1836  that  the  division  lists  were  first 
regularly  published,  and  their  publication 
elicited  a  protest  from  some  old-fashioned 
members  against  what  they  regarded  as  the 
imposition  of  shackles  on  their  independence. 
In  the  present  day  the  division  lists  are  jea- 
Jously  scrutinized  and  carefully  analysed,  and 
ihe  member  who  is  slack  in  attendance  or 
uncertain  in  his  allegiance  is  apt  to  be  severely 
called  to  account  by  his  constituents. 


CHAPTER  VH 

THE  MEMBER  AND  HIS  CONSTITUENTS 

WHAT  are  the  duties  of  a  member  of  the 
house  of  commons?  By  what  obligations  is 
he  bound  to  the  constituency  by  which  he 
is  returned  and  to  the  political  party  to  which 
he  is  attached?  What  kind  of  work  is  he 
expected  to  do,  and  what  kind  of  life  has  he 
to  lead?  We  may  try  to  answer  these 
questions,  first  by  referring  to  some  general 
principles,  and  then  by  giving  a  concrete 
illustration. 

In  November  1774,  Edmund  Burke  was 
invited,  on  short  notice,  to  stand  for  one  of 
the  two  vacant  seats  at  Bristol.  He  was  a 
stranger  to  the  place,  but  his  colleague  was  a 
local  gentleman  of  accommodating  nature, 
who  expressed  his  willingness  to  carry  out  any 
instructions  which  he  might  receive  from  his 
constituents.  Burke  was  duly  elected,  and  in 
his  subsequent  address  to  the  electors  he 
touched  on  the  topic  of  instructions  to  mem- 
bers. This  is  what  he  said — 

"Certainly,  gentlemen,  it  ought  to  be  the 
happiness  and  glory  of  a  representative  to 
live  in  the  strictest  union,  the  closest  corre- 
157 


158  PARLIAMENT 

spondence,  and  the  most  unreserved  commun- 
ication with  his  constituents.  Their  wishes 
ought  to  have  great  weight  with  him;  their 
opinion  high  respect;  their  business  unre- 
mitted  attention.  It  is  his  duty  to  sacrifice 
his  repose,  his  pleasures,  his  satisfactions, 
to  theirs;  and  above  all,  ever,  and  in  all 
cases,  to  prefer  their  interest  to  his  own. 
But,  his  unbiased  opinion,  his  mature  judg- 
ment, his  enlightened  conscience,  he  ought  not 
to  sacrifice  to  you,  to  any  man,  or  to  any  set  of 
men  living.  These  he  does  not  derive  from 
your  pleasure;  no,  nor  from  the  law  and  the 
constitution.  They  are  a  trust  from  Provi- 
dence, for  the  abuse  of  which  he  is  deeply 
answerable.  Your  representative  owes  you, 
not  his  industry  only,  but  his  judgment;  and 
he  betrays,  instead  of  serving  you,  if  he 
sacrifices  it  to  your  opinion. 

"My  worthy  colleague  says  his  will  ought 
to  be  subservient  to  yours.  If  that  be  all, 
the  thing  is  innocent:  if  government  were  a 
matter  of  will  upon  my  side,  yours,  without 
question,  ought  to  be  superior.  But  govern- 
ment and  legislation  are  matters  of  reason  and 
judgment,  and  not  of  inclination;  and  what 
sort  of  reason  is  that,  in  which  the  determina- 
tion preceeds  the  discussion;  in  which  one 
set  of  men  deliberate,  and  another  decide; 
and  where  those  who  form  the  conclusion  are 
perhaps  three  hundred  miles  distant  from 
those  who  hear  the  arguments? 

"To  deliver  an  opinion,  is  the  right  of  all 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    159 

men;  that  of  constituents  is  a  weighty  and 
respectable  opinion,  which  a  representative 
ought  always  to  rejoice  to  hear;  and  which 
he  ought  always  most  seriously  to  consider. 
But  authoritative  instructions;  mandates  is- 
sued, which  the  member  is  bound  blindly 
and  implicitly  to  obey,  to  vote  and  to  argue 
for,  though  contrary  to  the  clearest  conviction 
of  his  judgment  and  conscience, — these  are 
things  utterly  unknown  to  the  laws  of  the 
land,  and  which  arise  from  a  fundamental 
mistake  of  the  whole  order  and  tenor  of  our 
constitution. 

"Parliament  is  not  a  congress  of  ambassa- 
dors from  different  and  hostile  interests; 
which  interests  each  must  maintain,  as  an 
agent,  and  advocate,  against  other  agents  and 
advocates;  but  parliament  is  a  deliberative 
assembly  of  one  nation,  with  one  interest, 
that  of  the  whole;  where,  not  local  purposes, 
not  local  prejudices,  ought  to  guide,  but  the 
general  good,  resulting  from  the  general 
reason  of  the  whole.  You  choose  a  member 
indeed:  but  when  you  have  chosen  him,  he 
is  not  a  member  of  Bristol,  but  he  is  a  member 
of  parliament." 

This  passage  has  become  classical.  The 
principles  laid  down  by  Burke  were  not  novel, 
for  they  had  been  previously  enunciated  by 
Blackstone  and  others,  but  they  had  never 
been  so  eloquently  or  forcibly  expressed. 
Despite  the  differences  between  the  eigh- 
teenth century  and  the  twentieth  century,  dif- 


160  PARLIAMENT 

ferences  enormous  both  in  the  character  of  the 
constituencies  and  in  the  position  of  the  mem- 
bers returned,  these  principles  would  prob- 
ably be  accepted  by  most  members  of  par- 
liament as  sound  at  the  present  day.  A 
member  of  parliament  is  elected  by  a  local 
constituency,  he  has  special  duties  towards  it; 
but  he  is  not  a  mere  delegate  or  mouthpiece; 
he  is  a  member  of  a  body  which  is  responsible 
for  the  interests  of  the  country  at  large,  and, 
though  he  is  influenced  by  the  wishes  and 
views  of  his  constituents  and  by  the  action  of 
his  party,  he  does  not  surrender  his  right  of 
independent  judgment. 

In  the  earliest  days  of  parliamentary  his- 
tory the  ties  which  bound  a  member  to  his 
constituents  were  much  closer  than  they  are 

v>at  present.  There  were  several  reasons  for 
this.  The  work  of  the  house  of  commons 
was  less  important;  the  functions  of  the 

.  commons  were  mainly  to  present  petitions  for 
the  redress  of  grievances  and  to  grant  taxes; 
they  had  not  yet  become  responsible  for  the 
administration  of  the  country.  Parliaments 
were  short.  Members  were  required  to  be 
resident  in  their  constituencies.  They  re- 
ceived wages  from  their  constituents.  Thus 
they  were  much  in  the  position  of  paid  agents 
of,  or  delegates  from,  particular  bodies  or 
communities,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  in 
1339,  when  the  commons  were  asked  to  grant 
an  aid  asked  for  by  the  king,  they  replied 
that  they  could  not  do  so  without  consulting 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    161 

the  commons  of  the  country,  and  for  this 
purpose,  desired  that  another  parliament  be 
summoned.  In  the  fifteenth  century  it  seems 
to  have  been  the  practice  for  borough  mem- 
bers to  address  their  electors  and  give  an 
account  of  their  proceedings  when  presenting 
their  bills  for  wages  and  travelling  expenses, 
so  that  there  are  ancient  precedents  for  the 
addresses  which  twentieth-century  members 
are  expected  to  deliver  periodically  to  their 
constituents. 

Prynne,  writing  at  a  time  when  the  receipt 
of  wages  by  members  had  not  yet  become 
quite  obsolete,  says  that  "wages  begot  a 
greater  confidence,  correspondence  and  depen- 
dence between  knights,  citizens  and  burgesses, 
and  those  who  elected  and  defrayed  their 
expenses,  than  when  or  where  no  wages  or 
expenses  were  demanded  and  received  as  due 
by  law,  and  gave  the  electors  who  paid  just 
occasion  to  check  them  or  detain  their  wages 
in  case  of  abuse,  neglect,  or  unnecessary 
protraction  of  their  sessions." 

The  last  person  known  to  have  received 
wages  regularly  as  a  member  was  Andrew 
Marvell,  the  poet.  He  was  member  for  Hull 
during  the  first  eighteen  years  of  Charles  II's 
reign,  having  been  returned,  not  by  the 
people  of  Hull,  but  by  the  mayor  and  alder- 
men; and  he  richly  earned  his  wages  by 
sending  regularly,  almost  to  the  day  of  his 
death,  letters  to  his  good  friend  the  mayor, 
conveying  information  about  proceedings  in 


162  PARLIAMENT 

parliament,  and  about  London  affairs  gener- 
ally. In  fact  he  did  for  them  the  kind  of 
work  now  done  by  the  London  correspondent 
of  a  local  newspaper.  We  find  him  asking 
for  instructions  as  to  how  he  should  act. 
"I  desire  that  you  will,  now  being  the  time, 
consider  whether  there  be  anything  that 
particularly  relates  to  the  state  of  your  town, 
or  of  your  neighbouring  country,  or  of  yet 
more  public  concernment,  whereof  you  may 
think  fit  to  advertise  me,  and  therein  to  give 
me  any  your  instructions,  to  which  I  shall 
carefully  conform." 

Instructions  of  this  kind  were  common  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  and  most  of  the 
English  boroughs  sent  instructions  to  their 
members  to  oppose  Walpole's  unpopular 
Excise  Bill  of  1733.  When  such  instructions 
enjoined  a  policy  distasteful  to  the  crown, 
they  were  often  countered  by  "loyal  ad- 
dresses," the  cost  of  obtaining  which  was 
sometimes  paid  by  the  king  or  his  ministers. 
Burke's  speech  of  1774  seems  to  have  sent 
"instructions"  out  of  fashion.  Other  modes 
of  influencing  parliamentary  action  remained 
or  grew  up,  but  this  particular  mode  dis- 
appeared. 

After  the  great  change  effected  by  the 
Reform  Act  of  1832,  precise  instructions,  such 
as  Marvell  asked  for  and  received,  were  no 
longer  practicable.  After  that  time  members 
ceased  to  be  nominees  of  individual  patrons, 
or  of  a  little  knot  of  men,  such  as  a  mayor  and 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    163 

a  dozen  aldermen,  and  became  representatives 
of  larger  and  more  popular  constituencies, 
whose  views  and  wishes  had  to  be  ascertained 
and  formulated  in  a  different  manner. 

The  Redistribution  Act  of  1885,  which  was 
based  on  the  principle  of  splitting  up  the 
country  into  approximately  equal  electoral 
districts,  weakened,  if  it  did  not  destroy,  the 
old  corporate  character  of  constituencies, 
and  strengthened  the  view  that  a  member 
represents  the  country  as  a  whole,  and  that  it 
is  merely  for  the  convenience  of  election  that 
the  country  is  divided  into  electoral  districts. 

The  modern  tendency  is  to  make  an  election 
turn,  not  on  local  questions  or  local  interests, 
but  on  general  questions  which  agitate  the 
country  at  large.  A  candidate  usually  comes 
forward  either  as  the  supporter  or  as  the 
opponent  of  the  government  of  the  day,  and 
is  expected  to  give  a  general  pledge  that  he 
will  act  as  a  member  of,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  general  policy  of,  some  one  of  the 
great  political  parties  in  Parliament.  He  is 
often  also  harassed  by  demands  for  pledges  on 
particular  questions,  such  as  temperance,  the 
position  of  trades  unions,  or  women's  suffrage, 
and  hampered  by  such  pledges  as  he  gives 
in  response  to  these  demands.  He  is  expected 
to  shape  his  course  in  parliament  in  confor- 
mity, or  at  all  events  consistently,  with  the 
pledges  thus  given,  and  sits,  less  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  a  particular  locality,  than  as  a 
member  of  the  political  party  which  has  ob- 


164  PARLIAMENT 

tained  a  majority  of  votes  in  that  locality.  He 
owes  allegiance  to  his  party,  and  to  the  leaders 
of  that  party.  He  is  in  no  sense  a  mere  dele- 
gate or  agent,  whose  powers  are  limited  and 
whose  authority  can  be  withdrawn.  If,  after 
his  election,  he  should  change  his  party,  he  i 
could  not  be  required  to  resign  his  seat.  Po- 
litical parties  in  this  country  are  not  divided 
from  each  other  by  any  unbridgeable  gulfs; 
they  shade  into  each  other,  and  it  is  often  on 
a  balance  of  competing  and  conflicting  con- 
siderations that  a  man  makes  up  his  mind  to 
attach  himself  to  one  party  rather  than  to  an- 
other. Change  of  circumstances  or  change  of 
opinion  may  alter  that  balance,  and  compel 
him  to  reconsider  his  position.  If  on  such 
reconsideration  he  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
he  can  no  longer  properly  act  with  the  political 
party  in  which  he  is  enrolled,  he  does  not 
deserve  blame,  he  may  be  entitled  to  the 
highest  praise,  for  it  is  not  without  a  severe 
wrench  that  a  public  man  severs  his  political 
ties.  What  a  member  of  parliament  has  to 
consider  in  such  a  case  is,  how  far  his  future 
course  of  action  will  be  consistent  with  the 
promises  which  he  has  made  to  his  constitu- 
ents and  with  the  expectations  on  the  faith  of 
which  he  was  elected.  When  a  member  has 
made  up  his  mind  to  cross  the  floor  of  the 
house  and  join  another  set  of  political  allies, 
he  sometimes  offers  to  resign  his  seat  and 
submit  himself  for  re-election,  in  order  to  as- 
certain whether  his  action  meets  with  the 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    165 

approval  of  the  majority  of  his  constituents. 
But  he  is  not  bound  to  do  this,  it  is  merely  a 
question  of  conduct,  of  propriety,  which  he 
must  settle  for  himself. 

It  is  said  that  party  organization  in  parlia- 
ment has  become  stricter  in  recent  years,  and 
President  Lowell  has  adduced  figures  tending 
to  confirm  this  statement.  But  in  the  com- 
mon talk  about  party  tyranny,  and  about  the 
despotism  exercised  by  cabinets  or  whips, 
there  is,  to  speak  plainly,  much  nonsense  and 
much  cant.  A  member  of  parliament  is  not 
a  puppet,  but  a  human  being,  very  human, 
influenced  by  the  same  kind  of  considerations 
and  actuated  by  the  same  kind  of  motives 
as  his  fellow  mortals  outside  the  walls  of  the 
house.  He  recognizes  the  importance  of 
combination  and  organization  in  politics, 
as  in  the  other  affairs  of  life;  he  is  willing  to 
subordinate,  on  many  points,  his  individual 
preferences  and  opinions  to  those  of  his 
leaders;  and  he  knows  that  he  must  submit 
to  discipline  if  he  is  to  be  an  effective  member 
of  an  organized  body.  But  no  one  knows 
better  than  a  political  leader  what  arts  of 
persuasion,  what  tactics  of  conciliation  and 
compromise,  are  required  to  keep  a  party 
together.  He  knows  that  too  severe  a  strain 
must  not  be  put  on  party  allegiance,  that 
diversity  of  opinions  within  the  party  ranks 
must  be  recognized,  and  that  on  many  points 
the  lines  of  division  between  different  opinions 
by  no  means  coincide  with  the  lines  of  division 


166  PARLIAMENT 

between  different  political  parties.  And  lead- 
ers and  followers  alike  are  aware  that  they 
cannot  afford  to  disregard  public  opinion 
outside  parliament,  that  they  must  watch  its 
variations  and  fluctuations,  and  guide  their 
actions  accordingly.  Indeed,  the  chief  risk 
is  that  they  should  be  too  sensitive  to 
currents  and  gusts  of  so-called  public  opinion, 
as  indicated  in  the  very  fallacious  weather 
chart  of  the  press. 

Despotic  or  arbitrary  rule,  and  rigidity  of 
discipline,  are  quite  incompatible  with  the 
position  of  a  member  of  parliament.  He  has 
to  act  under  a  variety  of  influences  and 
motives,  often  pulling  in  different  directions. 
In  the  lobbies,  in  the  smoking  room,  on  the 
terrace,  he  is  brought  into  constant  and 
friendly  contact  and  intercourse  not  only 
with  his  political  friends  but  with  his  political 
opponents,  and  has  opportunities  for  ascer- 
taining their  views,  and  also  for  influencing 
their  opinions  and  actions.  He  may  be, 
from  the  whips'  point  of  view,  a  troublesome 
member  and  uncomfortably  independent,  apt 
to  bolt,  always  to  be  watched  and  often  to  be 
soothed.  Or  he  may  be  a  "  safe  "  member, 
one  who  can  be  counted  on  to  vote  straight, 
who  is  not  often  heard  in  debate,  but  who  has 
acquired  a  reputation  for  sound  judgment, 
and  whose  warnings  and  advice  always  com- 
mand respect.  But,  in  any  case,  he  is  a  mem- 
ber of  a  body  receptive  of  and  responsible  to 
many,  diverse,  and  quickly  changing  influ- 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    167 

ences  from  within  and  from  without,  and 
incapable  of  being  drilled  into  mechanical 
action. 

During  the  session  the  immediate  relations 
of  a  member  are  mainly  with  his  colleagues 
in  the  house.  But  he  is  not  only  a  member 
of  parliament,  he  is  also  a  member  for  a 
particular  constituency,  and  his  relations  to 
his  constituents,  whether  they  have  voted 
for  him  at  the  poll  or  not,  are  constant  and 
close,  and  require  unremitting  attention  both 
in  and  out  of  session  and  both  at  Westminster 
and  elsewhere.  He  may  be  a  local  magnate, 
a  man  of  high  social  position  in  the  country, 
a  member  of  a  family  whose  name  and  in- 
fluence have  for  generations  been  weighty  in 
the  neighbourhood.  He  may  be  a  great 
employer  of  local  labour.  He  may  have 
made  himself  well  and  favourably  known  by 
successful  administration  of  local  affairs. 
He  may  have  acquired  the  confidence  of 
working  men  as  the  secretary  or  guiding 
spirit  of  an  important  industrial  organization. 
He  may  be  a  stranger,  who  owes  his  seat  to 
his  own  ability  or  reputation,  or  to  the  efforts, 
oratorical  or  other,  of  his  friends.  He  may 
have  "  nursed  "  the  constituency  for  months 
or  years,  and  devoted  much  time,  labour  and 
money,  legitimately  or  illegitimately,  to  this 
purpose.  But,  whatever  he  is,  he  will  find, 
when  he  enters  the  house,  that  his  duties  to 
his  constituents  are  absorbing  and  exhausting. 
Mere  correspondence  will  impose  a  severe  tax 


168  PARLIAMENT 

on  his  time.    The  days  when  Andrew  Marvell 
could  discharge  his  obligations  by  writing  a 
weekly  letter  to  his  "  worthy  friends,"  the 
mayor  and  aldermen  of  Hull,  are  long  past. 
Modern  constituencies  are  great  multitudes, 
who  use  their  pens  freely,  and  expect  replies. 
The  modern  member  has  to  spend  his  morn- 
ings in  dictating  letters,  and  his  afternoons 
and  evenings  in  writing  them  in  the  library 
and  lobbies  of  the  house  of  commons.    He  is 
expected  to  ask  questions  in  the  house  about 
matters  of  local  interest,  and  to  communicate 
by  post  the  ministerial  reply,  with  such  com- 
ments as  occur  to  him.    Under  Queen  Eliza- ' 
beth  the  house  of  commons  required  members 
to  give  special  attention  to  what  would  now 
be  called  local  bills  affecting  the  constituency. 
The  house  was  "  not  to  go  to  the  question  of 
any  such  bill,  if  it  concerned  a  town  or  shire, 
unless  the  knights  of  such  shire  or  shires,  or 
the  burgesses  of  such  town  or  towns,  be  then 
present."     The  modern  rule  works  in  the1 
opposite  direction,  for  the  existing  standing 
orders  require  a  member  of  a  committee  on 
an  opposed  private  bill  to  sign  a  declaration, ' 
not  only  that  he  has  no  personal  interest,  but 
that  his  constituents  have  no  local  interest,  | 
in  the  bill.     The  reason  is  that  these  com- 
mittees act  judicially,  and  that  their  members 
must,  like  judges,  be  above  suspicion  of  in- 
terest or  bias.    Nevertheless,  if  a  private  bill 
comes  up  for  discussion  on  general  principles 
in  the  house,  a  member  is  permitted,  and  is 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    169 

often  expected,  to  explain  how  its  passing  or 
rejection  would  affect  the  interests  or  welfare 
of  the  constituency  which  he  represents,  and 
to  argue  for  or  against  it  accordingly.  And, 
if  the  bill  be  not  private  but  public,  propos- 
ing a  change  in  the  general  law,  each  member 
is  bound  to  consider  how  the  proposals  will 
affect  the  constituents,  or  any  important 
section  of  the  constituents  for  whose  welfare 
he  is  specially  responsible,  and  to  pay  close 
attention  to  any  representations  made  to  him 
on  the  subject.  These  representations  will 
be  made  to  him,  not  merely  by  correspond- 
ence, but  by  means  of  deputations  and  per- 
sonal conferences,  and,  although  a  private 
member  is  not  so  much  beset  by  deputations 
as  a  minister,  yet  he  may  have,  in  the  course 
of  the  session,  to  receive  many  deputations 
and  take  part  in  many  conferences  on  his  own 
account,  and  to  convey,  through  deputations 
or  personal  interviews,  the  wishes  and  opin- 
ions of  his  constituents  to  the  ministers  who 
are  responsible  for  the  government  and  legis- 
lation of  the  country.  Nor  will  his  duties 
to  his  constituency  be  exhausted  by  atten- 
tion to  their  legislative  and  administrative 
requirements.  He  has  to  be  courteous  and 
obliging  to  individual  constituents,  and  to 
their  wives,  and  daughters.  He  will  be  beset 
with  applications  for  admission  to  the  gal- 
leries, especially  on  days  when  an  exciting 
or  important  debate  is  expected.  He  will 
often  be  seen  conducting  friends  of  either 


170  PARLIAMENT 

sex,  with  whom  his""relations  are  political 
rather  than  social,  through  the  corridors 
of  the  house,  or  entertaining  them  on  the 
terrace,  or  personally  conducting  a  numer- 
ous and  happy  band  of  school-boys  or  school- 
girls. 

Such  are  the  duties  of  a  member  to  his 
constituents  whilst  he  is  at  Westminster. 
But  his  duties  elsewhere,  whether  during  a 
week  end  or  during  such  other  intervals  as  he 
may  snatch  from  the  performance  of  his 
strictly  parliamentary  work,  or  during  the 
longer  recesses,  will  be  numerous  and  various. 
He  will  have  to  give  periodical  addresses  to 
his  constituents,  reviewing  the  proceedings 
in  parliament,  and  justifying  his  own  share 
in  them.  There  will  be  meetings,  social, 
charitable  and  political,  which  he  will  have 
to  attend,  and  at  many  of  which  he  will  have 
to  take  the  chair.  There  will  be  lectures  on 
improving  or  popular  subjects  to  deliver. 
There  will  be  bazaars  to  open,  garden  parties 
of  a  popular  character,  and  other  festivities 
and  convivialities.  For  many  such  purposes 
the  local  member  will  always  be  in  request. 
Thus  the  life  of  a  member  is  one  of  strenuous 
and  multifarious  activity.  He  often  com- 
plains of  the  way  in  which  his  time  is  wasted 
at  the  house  of  commons.  There  are 
tedious  hours  during  which  he  is  waiting  for  a 
threatened  division,  whilst  bores  are  making 
dull  speeches,  or  time  is  being  frittered  away 
over  petty  details.  There  are  anxious  hours, 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    171 

when  he  is  sitting  in  an  expectant  attitude  on 
the  edge  of  a  green  bench  in  the  house,  with  a 
bundle  of  notes  on  his  lap,  waiting  to  catch 
the  Speaker's  eye,  and  to  deliver  a  speech  the 
points  of  which  are  being  anticipated  from 
other  lips,  and  which  may  never  be  delivered 
at  all.  But  there  are  times  of  interest  and 
excitement,  when  history  is  being  made,  and 
when  he  feels  that  he  is  an  active  participant 
in  its  making.  Members  who  are  in  the  house 
often  doubt  whether  a  career  which  for  many 
seems  to  mean  wasted  energies,  fruitless 
endeavours  and  baffled  hopes  is  worth  the 
sacrifice  involved;  but  members  who  have 
left  the  house  usually  look  wistfully  and 
regretfully  back. 

Sir  George  Trevelyan,  in  his  life  of  Macau- 
lay,  has  depicted  the  less  attractive  side  of  par- 
liamentary life  as  it  presented  itself  in  1853: 

"The  tedious  and  exhausting  routine  of 
a  political  existence;  waiting  whole  evenings 
for  the  vote,  and  then  walking  half-a-mile  at 
a  foot's  pace  round  and  round  the  crowded 
lobbies;  dining  amidst  clamour  and  confu- 
sion, with  a  division  of  twenty  minutes  long 
between  two  of  the  mouthfuls;  trudging  home 
at  three  in  the  morning  through  the  slush  of  a 
February  thaw;  and  sitting  behind  ministers 
in  the  centre  of  a  closely  packed  bench  during 
the  hottest  weeks  of  a  London  summer." 

According  to  a  contemporary  observer,  this 
description  of  parliamentary  life  in  1853 
might  be  applied  with  literal  accuracy  to  the 


172  PARLIAMENT 

parliamentary  life  of  forty  years  later.  Writ-1 
ing  in  1893,  Sir  Richard  Temple  described  his 
parliamentary  experiences  during  the  seven 
years  and  a  half  between  the  beginning  of 
1885  and  the  autumn  of  1892.  Sir  Richard 
Temple  entered  parliament  late  in  life,  after 
an  exceptionally  brilliant  career  in  India.  He 
never  held  office  in  England  or  took  a  very 
leading  part  in  English  politics.  But  during 
the  later  years  of  the  last  century  his  quaint 
figure  was  one  of  the  most  familiar  features 
of  the  house  of  commons.  When  he  was  not 
in  his  place  in  the  house  or  tramping  faithfully 
through  a  division  lobby,  he  might  often  be 
seen  conducting  a  party  of  friends,  usually 
ladies,  through  the  precincts,  and,  as  his 
book  shows,  no  one  could  have  been  a  more 
competent  guide.  Nor  could  any  member 
show  a  better  record  of  assiduity  to  parliamen- 
tary duties.  During  six  years  he  took  part 
in  2,072  put  of  2,118  possible  divisions.  "  I 
never  paired  but  once,"  he  says,  "  and  that 
was  for  a  State  function  which  I  thought  it 
behoved  me  to  attend,  otherwise  I  attended 
every  division  in  which  I  could  possibly  have 
been  present."  Sickness,  or  attendance  at 
the  London  School  Board,  on  which  he  sat, 
accounted  for  all  of  his  very  rare  absences. 

This  industrious  member  was  a  copious 
and  indefatigable,  and  often  a  very  effec- 
tive, writer.  For  six  years  and  more  he 
kept  a  parliamentary  journal  of  four  pages 
for  each  day,  and  as  during  that  time  he,  to 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    173 

use  his  own  words,  "  saw  or  heard  nearly 
everything  within  the  walls  of  the  house  it- 
self, and  much  of  what  occurred  in  its  pre- 
cincts," he  found  much  to  record.  It  was 
from  these  journals  that  he  derived  the  ma- 
terials for  the  book  which  he  published  in 
1893,  and  which  he  entitled  Life  in  Parlia- 
ment. No  more  graphic  description  of  the 
modern  house  of  commons,  its  work,  its  life 
and  its  ways,  its  aspects  as  a  social  club  and 
as  a  place  of  political  business,  has  ever  been 
written,  and  one  would  be  tempted  to  quote 
freely  from  it  if  it  were  not  so  easily  accessi- 
ble. It  must  suffice  to  quote  the  two  imag- 
inary instances  which  he  gives  to  illustrate 
the  life  of  a  diligent  and  assiduous  member, 
such  as  he  assuredly  was,  on  a  "downright 
hard"  day,  and  on  a  "  comparatively  easy  " 
day. 

"  On  an  easy  day  the  member  enters  the 
house  at  three  o'clock,  and  finds  that  some 
private  bill  is  coming  on,  to  which  he  has  been 
asked  to  attend  by  those  concerned.  At  half- 
past  three  the  questions  begin,  in  none  of 
which  has  he  any  particular  concern.  So  he 
takes  that  opportunity  of  showing  some  of 
his  constituents  or  their  families  over  the 
house,  this  particular  time  being  favourable 
for  sightseeing,  as  many  distinguished  mem- 
bers are  moving  about,  and  as  the  house  will 
be  crowded  to  hear  ministers  answer  the 
interpellations.  Then  he  takes  his  friends 
to  the  breezy  terrace  for  afternoon  tea.  This 


174  PARLIAMENT 

done,  he  returns  to  his  place  in  the  chamber. 
He  is  not  going  to  take  part  in  the  debate, 
to  which,  however,  he  listens  with  amused 
interest,  voting  in  the  lesser  divisions  from 
time  to  time,  till  the  dinner  hour,  when  he 
joins  a  small  party  which  one  of  his  colleagues 
is  giving  in  a  room  off  the  terrace.  Midway 
in  dinner  the  electric  bell  summons  him  to  a 
'  count,'  for  which  he  must  rush  to  the  cham- 
ber (if  his  party  be  in  office), 'lest  it  should 
prove  a  '  count-out/  After  this  interruption 
he  resumes  his  dinner,  and  the  brief  enter- 
tainment over,  he  returns  to  his  place  on  the 
green  benches  by  half-past  nine,  and  listens 
to  the  debate.  Between  that  hour  and  mid- 
night he  will  for  a  while  resort  to  the  upper 
corridor  adjoining  the  chamber,  and  write 
letters  to  his  political  friends.  But  he  can 
hear  all  that  is  passing  in  the  house,  so  he 
keeps  one  ear  open  in  that  direction,  while 
his  eye  is  fixed  on  his  paper.  At  a  quarter 
to  twelve  he  will  hear  'Division!  Division!' 
called,  and  he  runs  down  to  the  'Aye'  or  the 
*No'  lobby  as  the  case  may  be.  After  mid- 
night the  bills  of  private  members  are  called, 
one  or  other  of  which  he  will  oppose  or  sup- 
port, or  he  may  have  one  of  his  own  to  for- 
ward. By  half-past  twelve  he  is  released  for 
the  night,  thinking  that  the  house  is  not  an 
unpleasant  place  after  all! 

"On  a  hard  day  the  member  enters  the 
house  at  eleven  in  the  forenoon,  and  mounts 
the  great  staircase  to  the  room  "where  his  com- 


MEMBER  AND  CONSTITUENTS    175 

mittee  sits  on  a  private  bill  for  the  promotion 
of  some  material  enterprise.  If  he  happens 
to  be  chairman,  he  will  not  be  able  to  keep 
his  eyes  and  his  ears  off  the  case  till  four  in  the 
afternoon — without  any  interval  for  refresh- 
ment— listening  to  the  pleadings  of  counsel, 
the  points  of  order  raised  by  the  learned 
gentlemen,  the  evidence  of  promoters  and 
opponents,  the  opinion  of  experts  and  so 
forth.  Then,  having  actually  done  a  day's 
work,  he  proceeds  to  his  place  in  the  chamber, 
near  the  end  of  question-time,  to  make  some 
interpellation  which  stands  in  his  name,  and 
observe  the  answers  given  by  the  leader  of  the 
house  to  the  tormentors  on  the  opposition 
side.  He  then  watches  the  progress  of  some 
full-dress  debate,  rising  time  after  time  in 
his  place,  and  chagrined  at  finding  some  one 
else  always  called  before  him.  At  last,  as  the 
hands  of  the  clock  point  to  eight,  he  catches 
the  Speaker's  eye  and  is  called,  and  then  there 
is  an  adjournment  for  half-an-hour.  He 
cannot,  therefore,  think  of  dining,  so  he 
takes  some  light  refreshment  speedily  at  the 
luncheon-bar.  He  must  of  course  be  in  his 
place  a  few  minutes  before  the  time,  lest  the 
opportunity  so  long  sought  should  be  lost. 
At  half-past  eight,  or  thereabouts,  he  makes 
his  speech,  and  after  nine  he  has  some  peace 
of  mind  till  he  finds  his  speech  punished  by 
his  opponents.  Once  or  twice  he  will  jump 
up  to  explain,  with  the  courteous  permission 
of  the  house,  what  he  regards  as  a  misrepre- 


176  PARLIAMENT 

sentation  of  what  he  has  said.  All  this  keeps 
him  on  the  alert  till  the  division  takes  place 
shortly  before  midnight.  After  that  hour  he 
finds  that  some  educational  gentlemen,  hav- 
ing a  privileged  motion  to  which  the  midnight 
rule  does  not  apply,  begin  a  discussion  which 
lasts  till  say  half-past  one,  when  a  division 
takes  place,  whereon  the  house  adjourns.  He 
then  goes  home  tired  in  the  small  hours  of  the 
morning,  saying  to  himself — 

'  Who  would  fordels  bear 
To  grunt  and  sweat  under  this  weary  life  ?  '  ' 

This  description  would,  with  a  few  trifling 
modifications,  apply  to  the  house  of  commons 
of  the  present  day.  The  house  now  meets 
at  a  quarter  before  three,  and  questions  begin 
about  three.  Before  1902  business  used  to  be 
suspended  informally  for  about  half-an-hour 
at  dinner-time,  whilst  the  Speaker  took  what 
was  called  his  "  chop."  Now  business  is 
continuous,  the  Speaker  being  relieved  by 
his  deputy  during  the  dinner-hour,  but  at- 
tendance is  very  scanty  at  that  time.  Op- 
posed or  contentious  business  now  stops  ordi- 
narily at  eleven  instead  of  at  midnight,  and 
what  Sir  Richard  Temple  calls  the  midnight 
rule  is  now  called  the  eleven  o'clock  rule. 
But,  subject  to  these  corrections,  Sir  Richard 
Temple's  description  might  be  safely  utilized 
by  the  journalist  of  1911. 


CHAPTER  VIH 

RECORDS,  THE  PRESS,  AND  THE  PUBLIC 

THE  house  of  commons  possesses  no  early 
records  of  historical  value  except  the  old 
manuscript  journals  of  the  house.  Three  of 
these  volumes,  that  with  the  page  of  pro- 
testation torn  out  by  James  I  in  1621,  that 
with  the  unfinished  entry  as  to  the  attempted 
arrest  of  the  five  members  in  1642,  and  that 
with  the  erased  entry  as  to  the  dispersion  of 
the  long  parliament  by  Cromwell  in  1650,  are 
on  show  in  the  members'  library.  The  other 
volumes  are  in  the  Speaker's  part  of  the  li- 
brary. But  such  original  documents  as  early 
writs  of  summons,  parliament  and  statute 
rolls,  and  old  bills,  and  Acts,  are  mostly  to  be 
found  either  hi  the  record  office,  or  in  the  Vic- 
toria tower,  which  is  attached  to  the  house  of 
lords.  They  relate,  not  to  the  house  of  com- 
mons, but  to  parliament  as  a  whole. 

The  chief  official  records  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  parliament  are,  for  the  period  down  to 
the  end  of  Henry  VII's  reign,  the  rolls  of 
parliament,  and,  for  the  later  period,  the 
journals  of  the  two  houses. 

The  contents  of  the  rolls  of  parliament  are 
177 


178  PARLIAMENT 

to  be  found  in  six  folio  volumes  which  were 
printed  in  pursuance  of  orders  given  by  the 
house  of  lords  in  1767,  and  to  which  an  index 
volume  was  added  in  1832.  The  earliest 
entries  in  these  volumes  relate  to  the  parlia- 
ment of  1278,  the  latest  to  the  parliament 
of  1503;  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  vol- 
ume there  are  some  supplemental  entries,  re- 
lating to  the  period  from  1513  to  1553,  and 
intended  to  supply  deficiencies  in  the  lords 
journals  for  that  period. 

The  nature  of  the  proceedings  in  the  earliest 
parliaments  has  been  described  in  Chapter  I, 
and  it  will  have  been  seen  that  the  business 
related  mainly  to  petitions  for  the  redress  of 
grievances,  by  legislation  or  otherwise.  The 
bulk  of  the  entries  in  the  rolls  of  parliament 
consists  of  these  petitions,  with  short  notes 
of  the  replies.  There  are  also  a  few  records  of 
the  pleas  held  in  the  high  court  of  parliament, 
acting  in  its  judicial  capacity.  And  there 
are  descriptions  of  the  formal  proceedings  at 
the  opening  of  parliament.  During  the  ear- 
lier period  some  of  the  more  important  of  the 
parliamentary  enactments  were  occasionally 
entered  on  the  rolls,  but  it  was  not  until  the 
reign  of  Richard  III  that  Acts  of  Parliament 
were  regularly  so  enrolled.  At  a  later  date 
the  petitions  gradually  dropped  out,  and  only 
Acts  were  entered. 

The  journals  of  the  house  of  lords  begin  in 
1509,  but  are  not  complete  for  the  whole  of 
Henry  VIII's  reign.  At  that  time  the  house 


of  commons  had  no  fixed  habitation,  but 
found  precarious  lodging  in  the  chapter  house 
at  Westminster  or  elsewhere.  It  was  not 
until  1547  that  they  obtained  permanent 
quarters  in  St.  Stephen's  Chapel,  and  that  is 
the  date  at  which  the  extant  journals  of  the 
house  of  commons  begin.  We  happen  to  know 
that  at  an  earlier  date  their  clerk  recorded 
entries  in  a  book,  but  all  such  records  are 
lost.  The  commons  journals  for  the  years 
from  1581  to  1603  have  also  been  lost.  The 
series  of  manuscripts  on  which  the  printed 
edition  is  based  was  made  up  towards  the  end 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  the  original  manuscripts 
were  dispersed  or  destroyed  during  the  great 
rebellion. 

The  earlier  journals  of  each  house  are  of 
an  experimental  character,  and  are  enlivened 
by  a  personal  note  which  vanished  when  the 
forms  of  entry  became  stereotyped.  John 
Taylor,  who  kept  the  first  journals  of  the 
house  of  lords  in  Henry  VIII's  reign,  in- 
cidentally tells  us  various  things  about 
himself  and  his  opinions.  He  was  not  only 
clerk  of  parliaments  but  also  prolocutor  of 
convocation.  He  enters  the  fact  that  the 
Earl  of  Wilts  had  freely  and  without  solici- 
tation, and  in  the  presence  of  four  witnesses, 
granted  to  him  the  presentation  to  the  next 
vacancy  in  the  living  of  Skyrby,  in  Lincoln- 
shire. He  describes  in  terms  of  exuberant 
eloquence  how  Mr.  Thomas  Neville  acquitted 


180  PARLIAMENT 

himself  so  well  on  presenting  himself  as 
Speaker  that  the  king  knighted  him  then  and 
there.  His  entries  are  mainly  in  Latin,  but 
he  occasionally  breaks  into  the  vernacular, 
as  where  he  makes  a  memorandum  that  "It 
is  agreed  by  the  lords  that  stockfishmongers 
and  fishmongers  be  warned  to  be  here  on 
Thursday  next  by  9  of  the  clock." 
.  The  earliest  entries  in  the  commons  jour- 
nals are  short  and  barren,  and  contain  little 
more  than  the  successive  stages  of  different 
bills.  Then  come  narratives,  brief  at  first,  but 
gradually  expanding,  of  the  formalities  at  the 
opening  and  the  close  of  a  session.  The 
journal  of  1562  gives  as  a  reason  for  putting 
off  the  ceremony  at  the  opening  of  Queen 
Elizabeth's  second  parliament  that  "the 
queen's  majesty  was  somewhat  sick  of  a 
styche."  The  record  of  proceedings  in  the 
course  of  a  session  also  expands  into  something 
more  than  mere  entries  of  bills.  When  the 
commons  were  exhorting  Queen  Eliazbeth  to 
marry,  we  are  told  how  she  sent  them  a 
peremptory  command  not  to  proceed  further 
in  the  matter,  and  how  Mr.  Speaker  recited  a 
commandment  from  the  queen's  majesty  to 
spend  little  time  in  motions  and  to  avoid  long 
speeches.  Orders  as  to  procedure  are  noted 
from  time  to  time.  Questions  of  privilege 
crop  up,  and  much  space  is  devoted  to  Mr. 
Arthur  Hall  and  his  "lewd  speeches."  He 
seems  to  have  "charged  the  house  with 
drunkenness,  as  accompanied  in  their  coun- 


RECORDS,  PRESS,  AND  PUBLIC   181 

sels  with  Bacchus"  and  he  had  to  expiate  his 
offences  by  fine  and  imprisonment.  In  the 
reign  of  James  I  the  entries  in  the  commons 
journals  become  more  copious,  and  the  per- 
sonal note  of  the  journalist  is  more  prominent. 
The  clerk  makes  an  entry  that  on  one  occa- 
sion during  the  argument  on  a  bill,  a  young 
jackdaw  flew  into  the  house,  and  called 
"Malum  omen."  He  tells  us  a  good  deal 
about  a  solemn  feast  which  he  attended  at 
Merchant  Taylor's  Hall  with  the  Speaker,  and 
how  he  presented  the  feast  with  a  "march- 
pane" (a  kind  of  cake),  representing  the  house 
of  commons  sitting.  He  does  his  best  to  take 
rough  notes  of  speeches  made  in  the  house, 
but  often  does  not  succeed  in  getting  down 
much  more  than  the  Latin  and  biblical  catch- 
words and  quotations  with  which  the  speeches 
of  that  time  were  plentifully  interlarded. 
But  this  practice  of  taking  at  the  table  notes 
of  debate,  however  useful  it  might  be  to  the 
future  historian,  was  destined  to  be  soon 
checked  and  stopped.  James  I  had  an 
inconvenient  habit  of  sending  for  the  com- 
mons journals  and  perusing  their  contents,  and 
we  know  how  on  one  occasion  he  tore  out  an 
offending  page  with  his  own  hand.  Strong 
protests  were  made  against  disclosure  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  house,  and  eventually, 
but  not  until  the  following  reign,  the  question 
was  settled  by  a  resolution  of  the  house  in 
1628  that  the  entry  by  the  clerk  of  particular 
men's  speeches  was  without  warrant.  In 


182  PARLIAMENT 

1640,  the  "short  parliament"  emphasized 
this  resolution  by  another,  directing  that  Mr. 
Rushworth,  who  had  then  been  appointed 
clerk  assistant,  "shall  not  take  any  notes 
here  without  the  precedent  direction  and 
commands  of  this  house,  but  only  of  the 
orders  and  reports  of  this  house."  Since  then 
the  record  kept  by  the  clerks  at  the  table 
of  the  house  of  commons,  and  entered  in 
the  journals,  has,  with  a  few  formal  excep- 
tions, been  confined  to  things  done,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  things  said,  and  the  report 
of  parliamentary  debates  has  to  be  sought 
elsewhere. 

Whilst  the  scope  of  the  journal  was  limited 
by  the  suppression  of  notes  of  speeches,  it 
tended  to  expand  in  other  directions,  with  the 
growing  business  of  the  house,  and  had  to  be 
supplemented,  before  long,  by  other  official 
records. 

In  1680  the  house  of  commons,  by  resolu- 
tion, authorized  the  printing  and  distribution 
to  members  of  minutes  of  the  daily  votes  and 
proceedings,  and  this  practice  has  continued 
ever  since,  under  an  order  of  the  house  which 
is  made,  as  a  matter  of  course,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  each  session. 

The  bulk  and  variety  of  the  papers  circu- 
lated with  the  "votes  and  proceedings,"  and 
the  mass  of  papers  thus  supplied  to  each  mem- 
ber of  the  house  of  commons>daily  during  the 
session,  has  now  become  very  formidable. 


RECORDS,  PRESS,  AND  PUBLIC   183 

They  include  the  agenda  for  the  day,  and  also 
bills,  notices  of  amendments,  notices  of 
questions,  division  lists  and  many  other 
matters. 

The  short  notes  of  proceedings  taken  by  the 
clerks  of  each  house,  while  sitting  at  the  table, 
and  circulated  next  morning  in  a  printed  form, 
are  subsequently  elaborated  into  the  official 
journals  of  the  house.  Reports  made  to 
either  house  and  papers  presented  to  it  were 
occasionally  inserted  in  the  journals  from  a 
very  early  date,  and  in  the  course  of  the 
seventeenth  century  papers  of  this  kind  were 
from  time  to  time  printed  and  published 
by  order  of  the  house.  The  number  of  these 
papers  grew  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and 
in  the  year  1773  a  selection  was  made  of  valu- 
able reports  of  committees  not  printed  in  the 
journals.  The  four  volumes  thus  formed 
were  supplemented  in  1803  by  eleven  addi- 
tional volumes,  making  fifteen  in  all,  with  an 
index.  This  became  the  nucleus  of  the  vast 
collection  of  parliamentary  papers,  popularly 
called  "blue  books,"  which  has  been  contin- 
ued to  the  present  day,  and  which  lines  so 
many  shelves  in  the  libraries  and  galleries  of 
the  two  houses  of  parliament.  It  comprises 
more  than  7,000  folio  volumes,  and  the  series 
for  1908  alone  consists  of  126  volumes  and 
covers  twenty-five  feet  of  shelf -space.  These 
volumes  are  now  arranged  at  the  end  of  each 
session  under  four  general  heads:  1.  Public 
Bills.  2.  Reports  from  Committees.  3.  Re- 


184  PARLIAMENT 

ports  from  Commissions.  4.  Accounts  and 
Papers.  The  last  of  these  heads  includes  the 
numerous  returns  which  are  presented  to  par- 
liament either  in  pursuance  of  special  orders  of 
the  house  of  commons  or  of  standing  direc- 
tions in  Acts  of  Parliament.  There  are  gen- 
eral indexes  to  these  parliamentary  papers  for 
the  two  periods  1801-1852  and  1852-1899, 
and  these  are  supplemented  by  annual  and 
decennial  indexes.  The  documents  included 
in  this  collection  are,  it  need  hardly  be  said, 
indispensable,  not  only  to  historical  students, 
but  to  the  executive  departments  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  to  those  who  are  actively  con- 
cerned in  legislation  and  administration 
throughout  the  British  empire. 

The  orders  passed  by  the  house  of  commons 
in  1628  and  1640,  forbidding  their  clerks  to 
take  notes  of  speeches,  effected  a  complete 
divorce  between  the  official  records  of  par- 
liamentary proceedings  and  the  records  of 
parliamentary  debates. 

From  1628,  when  the  first  volume  of  the 
commons  journals  ends,  to  1909,  when  the 
new  series  of  official  reports  of  parliamentary 
debates  begins,  we  are  dependent  for  our 
knowledge  of  what  was  said  in  parliament 
almost  entirely  on  private  and  unofficial 
reports.  During  the  earlier  part  of  this 
period  these  reports  were  based  on  notes 
taken  surreptitiously,  and  were  published  in 
defiance  or  evasion  of  parliamentary  orders. 
Afterwards  each  house,  and  especially  the 


RECORDS,  PRESS,  AND  PUBLIC   185 

house  of  commons,  became  less  jealous  of  par- 
liamentary reporters  and  tolerated  their  pres- 
ence. Eventually  parliament  frankly  and 
fully  recognized  the  utility  of  publishing  re- 
ports of  parliamentary  debates,  gave  every 
encouragement  and  facility  to  the  preparation 
of  these  reports,  and  liberally  subsidized,  out 
of  public  money,  a  series  of  reports  which, 
though  not  official,  were  authorized. 

During  the  long  parliament  the  house  of 
commons  put  every  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
any  reporting  of  its  debates  or  proceedings. 
In  special  cases  reports  of  particular  speeches 
were  printed  by  its  order,  but  the  printing 
of  speeches  without  parliamentary  authority 
was  expressly  prohibited  and  in  some  cases 
severely  punished.  This  policy  of  prohibition 
continued  until,  and  long  after,  the  restoration 
of  Charles  II,  and  consequently  our  know- 
ledge of  parliamentary  debates  during  this 
period  is  very  scanty  and  fragmentary.  For 
instance,  of  the  debates  during  the  first  six 
years  of  Charles  II's  long  "Cavalier"  parlia- 
ment, which  met  in  1661,  there  is  no  record 
whatever  except  a  few  references  in  letters, 
memoirs  and  the  like.  In  the  closing  years  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  and  throughout  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  public  demand  for 
information  about  parliamentary  proceedings 
grew  rapidly  and  steadily,  and  had  to  be  satis- 
fied somehow.  But  the  policy  of  prohibiting 
reports  was  maintained  and  enforced,  and  a 
severe  contest  was  carried  on  between  par- 


186  PARLIAMENT 

liament  and  the  press.  This  contest  has 
been  fully  described  in  the  pages  of  May's 
Constitutional  History,  and  need  not  be  re- 
peated here.  The  two  most  important  dates 
are  1738  and  1771.  Before  1738  reports  of 
debates  appeared  in  such  periodicals  as  the 
London  Magazine,  the  Gentleman's  Magazine 
and  the  Scots  Magazine.  The  names  of  the 
speakers  were  distinguished  by  initials,  and, 
in  order  to  escape  the  censure  of  parliament, 
the  publication  was  postponed  until  the  end 
of  the  session.  In  1738  there  was  a  great 
discussion  in  the  house  of  commons  on  the 
breach  of  privilege  involved  in  these  publica- 
tions; the  house  prohibited  the  publication  of 
debates  on  proceedings  as  well  during  the  re- 
cess as  during  the  sitting  of  parliament,  and 
resolved  to  proceed  with  the  utmost  severity 
against  offenders.  The  prohibitions  were 
ineffectual  and  the  struggle  continued.  The 
scene  of  debate  was  thinly  veiled  by  the  pub- 
lisher under  some  such  description  as  the  sen- 
ate of  Great  Lilliput,  and  the  speakers  were 
designated  as  Brutus  or  Mark  Antony,  or  by 
other  Roman  titles.  Meanwhile  Woodgate 
and  other  prominent  publishers  were  frequent- 
ly being  censured,  committed  to  Newgate,  or 
otherwise  punished,  by  the  indignant  house. 
Stringent  steps  were  taken  for  the  exclusion  of 
strangers  and  the  exclusion  was  so  severely 
enforced  during  the  parliament  of  1768-1774 
that  it  has  been  sometimes  called  the  unre- 
ported  parliament.  It  was  during  this  parlia- 


RECORDS,  PRESS,  AND  PUBLIC   187 

ment  that  took  place  the  great  contest  of  1771, 
when  Colonel  Onslow  took  the  lead  on  behalf 
of  privilege  in  the  house  of  commons,  whilst 
Alderman  Wilkes  championed  the  printers, 
and  ingeniously  enlisted  on  their  behalf  the 
sympathies  and  authority  of  the  city  of 
London. 

During  this  period  of  prohibition,  how  did 
the  enterprising  editors  and  publishers  of 
magazines  and  other  periodicals  obtain  the 
parliamentary  information  which,  at  much 
risk  to  themselves,  they  supplied  to  the  pub- 
lic? This  is  a  question  on  which  Cave,  the 
editor  of  the  Gentleman's  Magazine,  and 
Samuel  Johnson,  the  most  famous  of  his  con- 
tributors, have  thrown  some  light.  The 
publication  of  debates  in  the  Gentleman's 
Magazine  began  in  July  1732.  In  1738,  when 
Johnson  was  about  thirty  years  old,  he  was 
employed  by  Cave  to  revise  the  notes  and 
reports  of  Guthrie,  his  chief  reporter,  who 
was  not  a  skilful  writer.  Soon,  instead  of  cor- 
recting the  reports,  he  drew  them  up  himself, 
and  eventually  he  wrote  them  all.  From  the 
sitting  of  November  25th,  1740,  to  that  of 
November  22nd,  1743,  all  the  reports  in  the 
Gentleman's  Magazine  are  from  Johnson's 
hand,  and,  during  that  period,  if  we  are  to 
trust  these  reports,  every  parliamentary  ora- 
tor, without  exception,  when  he  rose  to  speak, 
delivered  himself  of  a  leading  article  in  ample 
and  sonorous  Johnsonese.  The  reports  were 
a  great  success;  they  sent  up  the  circulation. 


188  PARLIAMENT 

of  the  magazine,  and  were  translated  into 
French  and  other  foreign  languages. 

About  these  reports  Murphy,  an  early 
biographer  of  Dr.  Johnson,  tells  a  curious 
story,  which,  though  well  known,  will  bear 
repetition.  Some  time  in  the  later  years  of 
his  life  Johnson  was  dining  with  Foote,  the 
actor.  Among  the  company  were  Dr.  Fran- 
cis, known  as  the  translator  of  Horace,  and 
Murphy  himself?  An  important  debate 
towards  the  end  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole's  ad- 
ministration being  mentioned,  Dr.  Francis 
observed  that  "Mr.  Pitt's  speech  on  that  oc- 
casion was  the  best  he  had  ever  read."  Many 
of  the  company  remembered  the  debate,  and 
some  passages  were  cited  with  the  approba- 
tion and  applause  of  all  present.  During  the 
ardour  of  conversation,  Johnson  remained 
silent.  As  soon  as  the  warmth  of  praise 
subsided,  he  opened  with  these  words,  "That 
speech  I  wrote  in  a  garret  in  Exeter  Street." 
The  company  was  struck  with  astonishment, 
and  Francis  asked  for  an  explanation,  "Sir," 
said  Johnson,  "I  wrote  it  in  Exeter  Street. 
I  never  had  been  in  the  gallery  of  the  house 
of  commons  but  once.  Cave  had  interest 
with  the  doorkeepers.  He,  and  the  persons 
employed  under  him,  gained  admittance; 
they  brought  away  the  subject  of  discussion, 
the  names  of  the  speakers,  the  side  they  took, 
and  the  order  in  which  they  rose,  together 
with  notes  of  the  arguments  advanced  in 
the  course  of  the  debate.  The  whole  was 


RECORDS,  PRESS,  AND  PUBLIC   189 

afterwards  communicated  to  me,  and  I 
composed  the  speeches  in  the  form  which 
they  now  have  in  the  parliamentary  debates." 
The  company  bestowed  lavish  encomiums  on 
Johnson,  and  one  of  them  praised  his  impar- 
tiality, observing  that  he  dealt  out  reason 
and  eloquence  with  an  equal  hand  to  both 
parties.  "That  is  not  quite  true,"  said 
Johnson.  "I  saved  appearances  tolerably 
well,  but  I  took  care  that  the  Whig  dogs 
should  not  have  the  best  of  it." 

The  account  of  this  famous  conversation 
was  not  published  until  at  least  nineteen 
years  after  it  was  said  to  have  taken  place, 
and  seems  to  contain  some  trifling  inaccura- 
cies, but,  in  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Birkbeck  Hill, 
the  highest  authority  on  Johnson,  "the  main 
facts  may  be  true  enough." 

In  the  struggle  of  1771  the  commons  were 
nominally  victorious,  but  were  practically 
defeated.  Since  that  year  the  proceedings 
of  both  houses  of  parliament  have  been  freely 
reported,  but  for  a  long  time  afterwards 
formidable  difficulties  stood  in  the  way  of 
anything  like  complete  and  accurate  reports. 
There  was  no  provision  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  reporters;  strangers  were  admitted  as 
a  matter  of  favour  and  under  inconvenient 
restrictions;  they  were  apt  to  be  regarded  in 
the  light  of  intruders  into  a  London  club,  and 
their  total  exclusion  was  frequently  and  ar- 
bitrarily enforced  under  the  orders  of  the 
house.  Hence  some  of  the  most  important 


190  PARLIAMENT 

debates  and  some  of  the  most  brilliant 
speeches  of  the  eighteenth  century  have  not 
been  reported  at  all,  whilst  in  other  cases  our 
knowledge  of  them  is  derived  from  scanty, 
imperfect  and  inaccurate  notes.  It  was  not 
until  after  the  fire  of  1834  that  special  pro- 
vision was  made  for  the  accommodation  of 
reporters,  and  it  was  not  until  1888  that  the 
rules  for  the  admission  and  exclusion  of 
"strangers"  were  placed  on  a  more  rational 
footing.  But  it  is  needless  to  say  that  ever 
since  the  Reform  Act  of  1832,  if  not  from  an 
earlier  date,  the  full  and  accurate  reporting 
of  parliamentary  debates  has  been  generally 
recognized  as  a  matter  of  great  public  im- 
portance, and  the  provision  of  adequate  ac- 
commodation and  facilities  for  the  public 
press  has  become  one  of  the  principal  cares 
of  the  house. 

At  the  present  day  those  who  wish  to  ob- 
tain information  about  the  parliamentary 
debates  of  the  past,  would  probably  turn,  in 
the  first  instance,  for  the  earlier  period,  to 
the  Parliamentary  History,  and  for  the  later 
period  to  "Hansard."  The  compilation 
known  as  the  Parliamentary  History  first  ap- 
peared in  1751  and  was  then  brought  down 
to  the  date  of  the  restoration  of  1660.  It  was 
superseded  and  continued  by  Cobbett's  well- 
known  Parliamentary  History,  which  came 
down  to  1803.  The  materials  used  in  this 
compilation  are  derived,  partly  from  the  rolls 
of  parliament  and  the  journals  of  the  two 


RECORDS,  PRESS,  AND  PUBLIC   191 

houses,  partly  from  authorized  reports  of  in- 
dividual speeches,  partly  from  fragmentary, 
scattered  and  unpublished  sources,  such  as 
drafts  or  notes  of  speeches  by  members  of 
parliament,  but,  for  the  eighteenth  century, 
mainly  from  the  accounts  given  in  con- 
temporary periodical  publications  such  as 
those  to  which  reference  has  been  made  above. 
When  Cobbett's  Parliamentary  History  was 
brought  to  a  conclusion  in  1803,  it  was  suc- 
ceeded by  a  series  of  reports  which  was 
at  first  known  as  Cobbett's  Parliamentary 
Debates.  In  1808  the  printing  of  this  series 
was  taken  over  by  Mr.  T.  C.  Hansard,  eldest 
son  of  the  Luke  Hansard  who  had  been  for 
many  years,  and  was  then,  printer  of  the 
House  of  Commons  Journals.  The  Hansards 
bought  out  the  Cobbett  interest  in  the  publi- 
cation, and  after  volume  twenty-two  (1822) 
the  name  of  Cobbett  disappeared  from  the 
title  page.  This  is  the  publication  which,  in 
successive  series,  under  different  forms  of 
management,  and  for  years  after  the  Han- 
sard family  had  ceased  to  have  any  interest 
in  it,  was  continued  until  the  end  of  the  year 
1908,  and  is  known  to  all  the  world  as  Han- 
sard. It  superseded  the  various  reports 
which  had  previously  chronicled  the  debates 
of  George  Ill's  reign,  and  succeeded  in  tri- 
umphing over  various  rivals  such  as  the 
Mirror  of  Parliament  (1828-1841).  It  was 
in  its  inception,  and  continued  for  many 
years  to  be,  a  purely  private  venture,  sup- 


192  PARLIAMENT 

ported  by  annual  subscription  from  members 
of  parliament  and  others,  having  no  special 
reporters  of  its  own,  and  deriving  its  mate- 
rials from  a  collation  of  reports  prepared  for 
the  Times,  Morning  Chronicle,  and  other 
leading  newspapers,  a  collation  which  was 
often  aided  by  the  corrections  of  the  speakers. 

At  the  end  of  1877,  as  the  result  of  some 
discussion  which  had  taken  place  in  the  house 
of  commons  on  the  system  of  parliamentary 
reporting,  an  arrangement  was  made  between 
the  chancellor  of  the  exchequer  and  the  Mr. 
Hansard  of  the  day  under  which,  in  consider- 
ation of  Mr.  Hansard  undertaking  to  main- 
tain a  staff  of  special  reporters,  to  report  fully 
certain  points  which  might  be  passed  over 
by  ordinary  newspaper  reporters  as  of  little 
interest  to  their  readers,  and  to  limit  the  an- 
nual subscription  to  the  series,  the  treasury 
undertook  to  subsidize  the  publication  from 
public  money.  Contracts  of  the  same  kind, 
but  with  varying  terms,  were  renewed  from 
time  to  time  with  Mr.  Hansard  and  his  suc- 
cessor, until  the  end  of  the  year  1908. 

But  in  that  year  the  two  houses  of  parlia- 
ment, following  the  recommendations  of  a 
strong  committee,  determined  to  discontinue 
the  system  of  subsidizing  unofficial  reports, 
and  to  appoint  official  reporters  of  their  own. 
The  new  system  came  into  operation  at  the 
\  beginning  of  the  session  of  1909.  Each  house 
^has  its  own  staff  of  reporters,  and  its  own 
separate  reports.  The  reports  of  each  day's 


RECORDS,  PRESS,  AND  PUBLIC   193 

debates  in  the  commons  are  distributed,  in 
an  unrevised  form,  by  breakfast  time  next 
morning.  The  reports  are  made  up  to  about 
11  p.m.  on  the  previous  day,  any  reports  of 
subsequent  proceedings  being  reserved  for 
the  following  number.  The  lords  are  more 
nervous  about  the  form  of  their  speeches,  and 
do  not  allow  them  to  be  reported  officially 
until  opportunity  has  been  given  for  their> 
revision.  Consequently  their  official  reports 
do  not  appear  until  after  a  delay  of  two  or 
three  days.  The  new  system  appears  to  be 
working  well,  and  it  is  a  great  convenience 
to  members  of  the  house  of  commons  to  have, 
in  a  handy  form,  official  reports  of  each  day's 
debates  in  time  for  use  at  the  sitting  of  the 
following  day. 

In  parliamentary  language  all  persons  who 
are  not  either  members  or  officers  of  parlia-t— 
ment  are  grouped  together  as  strangers.  In 
the  days  when  reporting  was  an  offence  a 
reporter  was  a  noxious  variety  of  stranger 
who  took  notes  which  he  had  no  business  to 
take.  Under  the  arrangements  which  have 
been  made  since,  reporting  has  been  recog- 
nized and  encouraged  and  a  distinction  is 
drawn  between  reporters  and  visitors.  In 
the  house  of  commons  seats  are  reserved  for 
reporters,  both  the  official  reporters  and  the 
representatives  of  newspapers,  in  the  gallery 
at  the  Speaker's  end  of  the  house,  and  accom- 
modation for  their  comfort  and  convenience 
is  provided  in  adjoining  rooms. 


194  PARLIAMENT 

The  accommodation  for  visitors  is  provided 
in  the  gallery  at  the  other  end  of  the  house, 
and  in  the  ladies'  gallery,  above  the  reporters. 
In  the  gallery  opposite  the  Speaker,  the  two 
front  rows  of  seats  on  one  side  of  the  clock  are 
reserved  for  peers,  and  those  on  the  other  side 
for  distinguished  strangers.  They  are  known 
as  the  peers'  gallery  and  the  special  gallery. 
The  other  rows  of  seats  for  visitors  are  known 
as  the  members'  gallery.  There  is  also  room 
for  a  few  visitors  under  the  special  gallery. 
During  the  sitting  of  the  house  orders  for 
admission  to  vacant  seats  in  the  members' 
gallery  may  be  obtained  from  the  admission 
order  office  in  St.  Stephen's  Hall.  If,  how- 
ever, a  visitor  wishes  to  secure  a  place  in  ad- 
vance he  must  obtain  what  is  called  an  order 
in  advance  through  a  member,  and  when 
there  is  a  competition  for  seats,  as  often  hap- 
pens when  an  interesting  debate  is  expected, 
members  draw  lots  with  each  other  for  the 
privilege  of  giving  these  envied  orders.  Ad- 
mission to  the  special  gallery  and  under  the 
gallery  can  only  be  obtained  through  a  mem- 
ber. Under  existing  regulations  only  the  re- 
lations of  members  are  admitted  to  the  ladies' 
gallery,  and  orders  in  advance  are  obtained 
through  members.  The  accommodation  in 
the  ladies'  gallery  is  scanty,  but  when  there 
is  space  available  "supplemental  orders"  of 
admission  can  be  obtained  during  the  sitting 
of  the  house  from  the  serjeant-at-arms. 

The  history  of  the  struggle  between  the 


RECORDS,  PRESS,  AND  PUBLIC    105 

house  of  commons  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
public  and  the  press  on  the  other,  is  a  history 
of  the  survival  of  outworn  forms  and  obso- 
lete claims.  Parliaments  of  the  seventeenth 
century  claimed  against  Stuart  kings  the 
right  of  private  deliberation.  Parliaments  of 
later  date  maintained  the  tradition  of  privacy 
long  after  the  reason  for  secrecy  had  dis- 
appeared, and  in  the  eighteenth  century  used 
against  the  press  and  the  public  the  weapon 
of  privilege  which  their  predecessors  had  used 
against  an  interfering  king.  Even  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  when  it  had  been  gen- 
erally recognized  that  publicity  of  debate  is 
an  essential  feature  of  parliamentary  govern- 
ment, that  without  it  the  elector  cannot  be 
enlightened  and  informed  as  to  the  course  of 
public  affairs  and  the  responsibility  of  the 
representative  to  those  whom  he  represents 
cannot  be  enforced,  even  then  the  house  of 
commons,  whilst  relaxing  and  indeed  re- 
versing its  practice,  declined  to  alter  its 
rules,  so  that  the  sittings  of  the  house  were, 
and  indeed  still  are,  in  theory  private  though 
in  practice  public.  Until  1875  a  single  mem- 
ber of  the  house  of  commons  could  insist  on 
the  withdrawal  of  strangers,  including  re- 
porters, and  until  1909  there  was  no  official 
report  of  its  debates. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS 

PARLIAMENT,  .as  has  been  seen,  consists  of 
two  houses  or  chambers,  the  house  of  lords 
and  the  house  of  commons,  and  it  is  the 
house  of  lords  that  is  usually  referred  to  as 
the  second  chamber. 

The  house  of  lords  is,  unless  an  exception 
be  made  for  Hungary,  the  oldest  second 
chamber  in  the  world.  Of  all  second  cham- 
bers it  is  the  most  numerous  and  the  most 
hereditary  in  its  character.  And  it  has  suf- 
fered less  change  in  its  constitution  than  any 
legislative  chamber  with  an  approximate 
tenure  of  life.  It  is  the  lineal  descendant  of 
the  great  council  of  the  Plantagenet  kings, 
before  that  council  was  reinforced  by  the 
addition  of  elected  members.  But,  though 
its  constitution  has  not  been  materially  al- 
tered since  those  days,  its  numbers  and  com- 
position have  greatly  changed. 

There  are  now  over  620  members  of  the 
house  of  lords,  including  royal  princes,  arch- 
bishops, dukes,  marquesses,  earls,  viscounts, 
bishops,  barons,  and  five  judicial  life  peers. 
To  the  model  parliament  of  1295  were  sum- 

196 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  197 

moned  two  archbishops,  eighteen  bishops, 
about  seventy  abbots  and  other  heads  of 
religious  houses,  seven  earls,  and  forty-one 
barons,  less  than  140  in  all.  At  first  there 
was  room  for  doubt  and  for  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cretion as  to  who  should  be  summoned  in- 
dividually as  greater  barons,  and  who  should 
be  left  to  be  represented  with  other  lesser 
barons.  But  the  line  was  gradually  drawn, 
and  the  fact  that  an  individual  writ  of  sum- 
mons had  been  sent  to  a  particular  baron 
gave  an  hereditary  right  to  his  descendants. 
Dukes  first  made  their  appearance  under 
Edward  III,  marquesses  under  his  successor, 
and  viscounts  in  the  fifteenth  century.  The 
practice  grew  up  of  creating  a  peerage  by  the 
more  formal  method  of  granting  letters  pa- 
tent, and  this  practice  superseded  the  earlier 
system  under  which  the  right  to  attend  as  a 
peer  depended  on  a  writ  of  summons  having 
been  issued  to  an  ancestor.  The  number  of 
abbots  who  were  summoned  rapidly  dwindled, 
and  they  disappeared  altogether  after  the 
Reformation.  The  number  of  bishops  was 
increased  at  that  time,  but  remained  station- 
ary for  centuries  afterwards.  When  it  was 
again  increased  in  the  nineteenth  century  a 
provision  was  made  that  not  all  the  bishops 

\  should  have   seats   in   the  house   of   lords. 

~^Only  twenty-four  bishops  now  sit  there,  be- 
sides the  archbishops;  a  junior  bishop  has  to 
wait  unless  he  holds  the  see  of  Durham,  Win- 
chester or  London. 


198  PARLIAMENT 

Two  points  may  be  specially  noticed  about 
the  early  house  of  lords. 
*  In  the  first  place  it  was  a  small  body,  very 
small  in  comparison  with  the  present  house 
of  lords,  small  in  comparison  with  the  con- 
temporary house  of  commons.  Before  the 
Tudors  the  number  of  temporal  peers  never 
exceeded  fifty-five,  rarely  reached  that  num- 
ber, and  once  fell  as  low  as  twenty-three. 
During  the  Tudor  reigns  the  number  of  tem- 
poral peers  seems  to  have  fluctuated  round 
fifty.  The  number  was  increased  under  the 
Stuarts,  but  it  was  not  until  the  eighteenth 
century  that  the  lavish  creation  of  peers  began. 
Of  the  existing  peerages  only  a  very  small 
proportion  are  really  ancient, 
i  In  the  second  place  the  proportion  of  hered- 
itary members  of  the  house  was  formerly 
much  smaller  than  it  is  at  present.  Before 
the  Reformation  the  spiritual  peers,  whose 
rights  were  not  hereditary,  could  usually 
command  a  majority. 

The  union  with  Scotland  in  1707,  and  the 
union  with  Ireland  in  1801,  gave  rise  to 
another  classification  of  peerages.  There  are 
peerages  of  England  created  before  1707, 
peerages  of  Great  Britain  created  between 
1707  and  1801,  and  peerages  of  the  United 
Kingdom  created  since  1801.  All  these  con- 
fer on  their  holders  an  hereditary  right  to  sit 
in  the  house  of  lords.  But,  besides  these, 
there  are  peerages  of  Scotland  and  peerages  of 
Ireland,  and  the  holders  of  these  peerages 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  199 

have  no  right  to  sit  in  the  house  of  lords, 
unless  they  either  hold  also,  as  many  of  them 
do,  peerages  of  the  other  class,  or  have  been 
elected  as  representative  peers  by  their 
brother  peers  of  Scotland  or  Ireland.  There 
are  sixteen  representative  peers  of  Scotland'- 
and  twenty-eight  representative  peers  of  Ire- 
land. The  Irish  peers  enjoy  some  advantages 
over  their  Scottish  brethren.  In  the  first 
place,  if  they  are  elected  representative  peers, 
they  are  elected  for  life,  and  not  for  a  single 
parliament,  like  the  Scottish  peers.  Then, 
if  they  are  not  elected,  they  are  eligible  for 
seats  in  the  house  of  commons,  though  not  for 
Irish  seats.  Lord  Palmerston  was  an  Irish 
peer,  but  sat  in  the  house  of  commons.  Lord 
Curzon  was  created  an  Irish  peer  when  he 
went  as  viceroy  to  India,  and  would  be 
eligible  to  a  seat  in  the  house  of  commons  if 
he  had  not  been  elected  as  a  representative 
Irish  peer.  But  our  sympathies  with  the 
disabilities  of  Scottish  peers  may  be  tempered 
by  the  reflection  that  their  number  is  small 
and  dwindling.  The  power  to  create  peers 
of  Ireland  still  remains,  though  under  limita- 
tions. But  the  power  to  create  peers  of 
Scotland  has  ceased,  and  there  are  now  not 
more  than  twenty  Scottish  peers  who  are 
without  the  right  to  seats  in  the  house  of 
lords,  either  as  representative  peers  or  in  right 
of  some  other  peerage. 

The   house   of   lords   shares   most   of   its 
functions  with  the  house  of  commons,  but 


200  PARLIAMENT 

its  judicial  functions  are  peculiar  to  itself. 
The  control  of  the  house  of  lords,  by  way  of 
appeal,  over  the  action  of  the  English  courts 
of  common  law  may  be  traced  back  to  the 
time  when  it  was  the  king's  great  council. 
The  control  was  subsequently  extended  to 
the  courts  of  chancery  or  equity  in  England, 
and  to  the  courts  of  Scotland  and  Ireland. 
But  it  has  never  been  extended  to  the 
ecclesiastical  courts,  or  to  the  courts  in 
British  dominions  beyond  the  seas.  In 
appeals  from  these  courts  its  place  is  taken 
by  the  judicial  committee  of  the  privy 
council. 

Although  the  judicial  functions  of  the  house 
of  lords  are  of  great  antiquity,  the  activity  of 
their  exercise,  and  the  mode  in  which  they 
have  been  exercised,  have  varied  much. 
During  the  greater  part  of  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries  they  were  practically 
dormant.  During  most  of  the  eighteenth 
century  they  were  exercised  by  the  lord 
chancellor  of  the  day,  "sitting  in  judicial 
solitude,"  as  Erskine  May  says,  "with  two 
mute,  untrained  lords  in  the  background  to 
represent  the  collective  wisdom  of  the  court." 

Lord  Selborne's  scheme  for  amalgamating 
the  courts  threatened  the  judicial  powers 
of  the  house  of  lords  with  extinction,  for  the 
supreme  court  which  he  called  into  being  was 
intended  to  be  supreme  in  fact  as  well  as  in 
name,  and  its  decisions  were  intended  to  be 
final.  But  before  his  Judicature  Act  came 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  201 

into  operation  it  was  amended  by  an  Act  of 
1876  which  restored  the  appellate  jurisdiction 
of  the  house  of  lords  and  provided  for  its 
exercise  by  four  salaried  lords  of  appeal  in 
ordinary.  These  lords  of  appeal  were  in- 
tended to  be  official  peers  and  to  hold  their 
peerages  only  during  their  tenure  of  office,  for 
the  decision  in  the  Wensleydale  case  that  the 
grant  of  a  peerage  for  life  would  not  entitle 
the  grantee  to  a  seat  in  the  house  of  lords 
was  then  still  fresh  in  men's  memories,  and  it 
was  deemed  expedient  to  draw  a  distinction 
between  official  peerages  and  life  peerages. 
But  eleven  years  afterwards  this  distinction 
was  removed,  and  an  Act  of  1887  enabled 
retiring  lords  of  appeal  to  retain  their 
peerages  during  their  life.  Hence  it  is  that 
the  five  life  peers  who  are  now  in  the  house 
of  lords  include  one  former  lord  of  appeal. 

The  Act  of  1876  provides  that  no  appeal; 
can  be  heard  by  the  house  of  lords  unless  at 
least  three  persons  with  specified  legal 
qualifications  are  present.  But  the  judgment 
is  still,  technically,  the  judgment  of  the  house 
of  lords;  the  Act  does  not  disqualify  any 
member  of  that  house  for  the  exercise  of 
judicial  functions;  and  any  peer,  however 
unlearned,  may,  in  theory,  attend  and  take 
an  active  part  in  the  proceedings  of  an  appeal. , 
What  would  be  the  result  of  his  attempting 
to  do  so  is  another  question.  The  position 
is  interesting,  because  it  illustrates  the 
possibility  of  the  house  of  lords  delegating 


202  PARLIAMENT 

its  functions,  without  any  express  change  in 
the  law,  to  a  specially  qualified  committee, 
and  also  illustrates  the  large  part  played  by 
legal  fiction  in  our  constitutional  arrange- 
ments. The  judicial  functions  of  the  house  of 
lords  are  performed  by  some  half-a-dozen 
trained  lawyers,  and  the  other  members  of  the 
house  take  no  part  in  and  share  no  responsi- 
bility for  these  proceedings. 

The  arrangements  during  what  is  techni- 
cally a  judicial  sitting  of  the  house  of  lords  are 
quite  different  from  the  arrangements  during 
a  sitting  for  purposes  of  legislation  or  debate. 
The  sitting  begins  in  the  morning,  and 
terminates  before  the  ordinary  afternoon 
sitting  is  ushered  in  by  prayers.  The  small 
number  of  learned  lords  who  attend  are 
sprinkled  about  informally  at  the  lower  end 
of  the  house,  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
the  bar,  from  which  they  are  addressed  by 
counsel. 

The  general  business  of  the  house  of  lords 
usually  begins  at  about  4.30  p.m.,  after 
prayers  have  been  read  by  one  of  the  bishops. 
The  ordinary  sittings  are  not  long;  they 
rarely  extend  beyond  the  dinner  hour,  and 
are  sometimes  over  in  a  few  minutes.  The 
amount  of  business  to  be  transacted  is  much 
less  than  in  the  house  of  commons,  and  on 
many  days  the  red  benches  are  very  bare. 
Questions  are  few,  there  are  no  estimates  to 
discuss,  and  debates  on  the  different  stages 
of  bills  are,  as  a  rule,  much  shorter.  Con- 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS 

sequently  it  has  not  been  found  necessary  to 
adopt  any  precise  allocation  of  time,  or  to 
have  recourse  to  any  of  the  methods  for 
shortening  proceedings  with  which  the  house 
of  commons  is  familiar. 

Subject  to  the  important  exception  of 
financial  measures,  almost  any  public  bill 
may  be  introduced  in  either  house.  But 
in  recent  practice  the  more  important  bills 
are,  as  a  rule,  introduced  in  the  house  of  com- 
mons, with  the  result  that  in  the  early  part 
of  the  session  there  is  a  dearth  of  legislative 
business  in  the  house  of  lords,  whilst  at  the 
end  there  is  much  congestion,  and  bills 
brought  from  the  other  house  are  hurried 
through  with  what  is  sometimes  described  as 
indecent  and  unseemly  haste.  Complaints 
have  often  been  made  on  that  score,  and  it 
has  been  suggested  that  parliamentary  time 
might  be  saved  if  more  of  the  important  bills 
were  introduced  in  the  house  of  lords,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  session,  when  the  other  house 
is  necessarily  much  engaged  with  financial 
business.  But  the  government  of  the  day, 
whichever  party  is  in  power,  does  not  show 
much  inclination  to  adopt  this  suggestion. 
The  reason  probably  is,  that  until  a  measure 
has  been  discussed  in  the  popular  house  it  is 
difficult  to  ascertain  the  trend  and  force  of 
public  opinion,  what  chance  the  measure  has 
of  becoming  law,  and  what  amendments  it  is 
likely  to  require  in  deference  to  hostile  or 
friendly  criticism.  Hence,  in  the  case  of 


204  PARLIAMENT 

controversial  measures,  little  is  gained  by 
passing  a  bill  through  its  earlier  stages  in  the 
house  of  lords,  whilst  the  risk  of  its  becoming 
a  derelict  towards  the  end  of  the  session  is 
increased. 

It  is  the  strict  limitation  of  powers  for 
dealing  with  finance  that  constitutes  the 
main  difference  between  the  work  of  the 
house  of  lords  and  the  work  of  the  house 
of  commons,  and  that  is  at  the  root  of  the 
comparatively  subordinate  position  occupied 
in  the  modern  constitution  by  the  former 
house.  The  earlier  stages  in  the  development 
of  the  principle  that  grants  of  money  must 
be  initiated  in  the  house  of  commons  have 
been  described  in  Chapter  I.  To  the  recog- 
nition of  the  principle  by  Henry  IV  in 
1407  much  importance  is  attached  by  con- 
stitutional historians,  but  it  was  not  until 
some  centuries  afterwards,  not  until  after 
the  Restoration  of  1660,  when  the  two  houses 
resumed  those  normal  functions  which  had 
been  interrupted  by  the  revolution  and  the 
Cromwellian  interregnum,  that  the  house  of 
commons  formally  and  distinctly  asserted, 
as  against  the  other  house,  their  exclusive 
right  to  control  taxation.  In  1671  they 
resolved  "that  in  all  aids  given  to  the  king 
by  the  commons,  the  rate  or  tax  ought  not  to 
be  altered  by  the  lords."  In  1678  they  again 
resolved,  in  fuller  language,  "that  all  aids  and 
supplies,  and  aids  to  His  Majesty  in  parlia- 
ment, are  the  sole  gift  of  the  commons;  and 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  205 

all  bills  for  the  granting  of  any  such  aids  or 
supplies  ought  to  begin  with  the  commons; 
and  that  it  is  the  undoubted  and  sole  right  of 
the  commons  to  direct,  limit  and  appoint  in 
such  bills  the  ends,  purposes,  considerations, 
conditions,  limitations  and  qualifications  of 
such  grants,  which  ought  not  to  be  changed  or 
altered  by  the  house  of  lords."  The  resolu- 
tions of  1671  and  1678  were  emphasized  and 
expanded  by  a  famous  resolution  passed  by 
the  house  of  commons  on  the  6th  of  July, 
1860,  at  the  time  of  the  quarrel  between  the 
two  houses  over  the  repeal  of  the  paper  duty, 
and  it  is  upon  these  resolutions  that  is  based 
the  practice  of  the  house  of  commons  in 
dealing  with  cases  where  they  conceive  that 
their  financial  rights  or  privileges  have  been 
infringed  by  the  other  house. 

The  main  rules  on  the  observance  of  which  ^r-- 
the  commons  insist  may  be  formulated  as 
follows — 

1.  The   lords   ought   not   to   initiate   any 
legislative   proposal,   embodied   in   a  public 
bill,  and  imposing  a  charge  on  the  people, 
whether  by  way  of  taxes,  rates  or  otherwise, 
or  regulating  the  administration  or  applica- 
tion of  money  raised  by  such  a  charge. 

2.  The  lords  ought  not  to  amend  any  such 
legislative  proposal  by  altering  the  amount 
of  a  charge,  or  its  incidence,  duration,  mode 
of    assessment,    levy    or    collection,    or    the 
administration  or  application  of  money  raised 
by  such  a  charge. 


206  PARLIAMENT 

It  must  be  observed  that  these  are  claims 
by  the  house  of  commons,  claims  which  have 
not  been  formally  admitted  by  the  other 
house,  and  which  have  not  taken  the  form  of 
rules  embodied  in  any  law  or  standing  order 
binding  on  that  house.  But  they  have  been 
recognized  and  relied  on  by  leading  members 
of  the  house  of  lords,  on  both  sides  of  the 
house,  have  been  generally  observed  in  the 
practice  of  both  houses,  and,  so  far  as  con- 
stitutional law  depends  on  usage  and  practice, 
may  be  treated  as  forming  part  of  the  con- 
stitutional law  of  the  country. 

It  must  be  further  observed  that  the 
application  of  these  general  rules  to  particular 
cases  may  and  often  does  give  rise  to  ques- 
tions of  difficulty  and  complexity,  and  that 
to  insist  too  strictly  on  adherence  to  them 
would  often  cause  much  practical  incon- 
venience. What  is  a  " charge  on  the  people"? 
How  far  ought  one  to  pursue  possible  con- 
sequences and  results  in  considering  whether 
such  a  change  or  burden  is  imposed?  What 
is  exactly  meant  by  the  administration  or 
application  of  money  raised  by  a  charge? 
All  administration  involves,  or  may  involve, 
expenditure  of  public  money,  and  would 
not  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  these 
words  hamper  the  legislative  action  of  the 
house  of  lords  in  a  way  which  is  neither 
intended  nor  desirable?  Questions  of  this 
kind  have  frequently  been  raised  for  the 
consideration  both  of  the  Speaker  and  of 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  207 

the  house  of  commons,  and,  as  a  rule,  have 
been  settled  in  accordance  with  the  dictates 
of  common  sense  and  general  convenience, 
but  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  the  pro- 
cedure elastic  and  the  rulings  not  always 
easy  to  reconcile  with  each  other.  In  the 
case  of  private  bills,  the  commons  have 
expressly  waived  some  of  their  privileges  by 
standing  order.  In  the  case  of  public  bills 
the  modern  practice  is  that  the  Speaker 
intimates  in  the  first  instance  whether  in 
his  opinion  a  case  of  privilege  has  arisen, 
that  is  to  say,  whether  he  thinks  that  any 
of  the  rights  or  privileges  claimed  by  the 
house  with  respect  to  finance  have  been 
infringed.  If  he  does  think  so,  it  is  then 
for  the  house  to  determine,  on  the  motion 
of  a  minister,  or  otherwise,  whether  they 
will  insist  on  or  will  waive  their  privilege. 
If  the  commons  assert  their  privilege  on  an 
amendment  made  by  the  lords,  they  usually 
send  a  message,  giving  some  general  reason, 
such  as  that  the  amendment  would  interfere 
with  the  public  revenue,  and  adding  that  "the 
commons  consider  that  it  is  unnecessary 
on  their  part  to  offer  any  further  reason, 
hoping  the  above  reason  may  be  deemed 
sufficient."  This  is  the  conventional  form 
of  hinting  at  a  claim  of  "privilege,"  and  the 
hint  is  in  most  cases  accepted  by  the  lords  on 
the  very  sound  principle  that  it  is  not  worth 
while  to  raise  a  big  question  except  on  a  big 
issue.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  commons 


208  PARLIAMENT 

think  that  an  amendment,  though  not  strictly 
regular,  does  not  materially  infringe  their 
privileges,  and  therefore  may  be  accepted, 
they  are  in  the  habit  of  saving  their  position 
by  having  a  special  entry  inserted  in  their 
journal  explaining  their  reasons  for  accept- 
ance. There  are  other  ways  of  getting  over  or 
getting  round  rules  of  privilege  so  as  to  avoid 
practical  inconvenience.  For  instance  the 
lords  sometimes  insert  financial  provisions  in 
a  bill  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what  they 
desire.  These  provisions  are  printed  in 
italics,  and,  strictly  speaking,  are  not  sup- 
posed to  be  in  the  bill  at  all.  They  are  merely 
suggestions  to  the  house  of  commons  which 
that  house  may  adopt  if  it  is  considered 
expedient  so  to  do.  The  practice  of  both 
houses  has  been,  as  a  rule,  conciliatory,  and 
though  questions  of  privilege  between  the  two 
houses  have  occasionally  roused  grumblings 
of  discontent,  they  have  very  rarely  caused  a 
serious  breach. 

The  rejection  of  the  Finance  Bill  in  1909 
was,  of  course,  an  exception,  but  the  con- 
troversies raised  by  that  rejection  are  too 
acute  and  of  too  recent  date  to  be  made  the 
subject  of  discussion  here.  The  constitu- 
tional arguments  on  either  side  are  well 
known.  On  the  one  side  it  was  argued  that 
this  particular  bill  was  something  different 
from  and  more  than  an  ordinary  "finance"  or 
money  bill,  and  that,  even  if  its  scope  had 
been  merely  financial,  the  right  of  the  house 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  209 

of  lords  to  reject  a  "money  bill,"  though  rarely 
exercised,  existed,  was  substantial  and  had 
never  been  denied.  On  the  other  hand  it  was 
argued  that  the  alteration  of  practice  made  by 
Gladstone  in  1861,  when  he  embodied  all  the 
financial  proposals  of  the  year  in  a  single 
measure,  had  merely  affirmed  and  strength- 
ened the  true  constitutional  relations  between 
the  two  houses,  and  that  the  rejection  of  a 
finance  bill  was  as  inconsistent  with  sound 
constitutional  practice  as  its  amendment. 
The  relations  between  the  two  houses  are  not 
governed  by  statute  and  are  beyond  the 
cognizance  of  the  courts  of  law.  Therefore 
of  legal  rights  and  powers  in  the  narrower 
sense  there  is  no  question.  The  question  is 
one  of  constitutional  usage  and  propriety. 

But,  if  there  is  a  debatable  borderland 
between  the  rights  and  privileges  claimed 
by  the  commons,  and  those  admitted  by 
the  house  of  lords,  the  fact  remains  that 
the  fiscal  powers  of  the  latter  house,  the 
powers  of  the  lords  with  respect  to  revenue, 
expenditure  and  taxation,  are  strictly  cir- 
cumscribed. They  are  not  consulted  about 
the  estimates,  about  the  amounts  of  money 
to  be  raised,  or  the  purposes  to  which  those 
amounts  are  to  be  appropriated.  Proposals 
for  taxation  do  not  reach  them  until  these 
proposals  have  been  sanctioned  by  the  other 
house,  and  then  in  a  form  which  makes 
criticism  difficult.  And,  as  the  power  of  the 
executive  government  depends  on  the  power 


210  PARLIAMENT 

of  the  purse,  the  whole  range  of  executive 
government  is  placed  beyond  their  effective 
control.  They  can  criticize,  and  their  criti- 
cisms are  often  valuable  and  influential,  but 
they  cannot  enforce  their  criticisms.  The 
ministry  cannot  afford  to  disregard  a  resolu- 
tion or  vote  of  the  house  of  commons  ex- 
pressing or  implying  condemnation  of  their 
policy  of  action.  Such  a  resolution  or  vote 
must  shake  them,  may  destroy  them.  But 
they  can  afford  to  disregard  a  condemnatory 
resolution  passed  by  the  lords.  In  short, 
is  to  the  commons,  and  not  to  the  lords, 
that  the  executive  government  is  responsi- 
ble, so  far  as  responsibility  implies  enforce- 
able control.  What  then  remains  to  the 
house  of  lords?  Very  great  powers.  In  the 
sphere  of  executive  government,  the  lords 
can,  and  do,  express  their  opinion  with 
greater  freedom  than  is  possible  in  a  body 
where  the  bonds  of  party  discipline  are  more 
strictly  drawn;  and  those  who  take  part  in 
and  influence  their  debates  speak  with  all 
the  authority  that  attaches  to  high  position, 
to  recognized  ability,  and  to  ripe  experience. 
Such  authority  is  not  to  be  measured  by  votes 
on  a  division,  any  more  than  the  influence  of 
debates  in  the  house  of  commons  is  to  be  so 
measured,  and  is  operative  although  it  can- 
not be  enforced.  Debates  in  the  house 
of  lords  on  questions  of  policy  and  admin- 
istration are  often  of  great  value,  carry 
great  weight,  and  materially  influence  the 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  211 

opinion  of  the  country  and  the  action  of  the 
government. 

In  the  sphere  of  legislation,  subject  to  the 
fiscal  limitations  referred  to  above,  and  to 
some  minor  technical  differences,  the  powers 
of  the  two  houses  are  co-equal  and  concur- 
rent. But  the  recent  practice  of  both  the 
great  political  parties  has  been  to  initiate  the 
more  important  measures  of  legislation  in 
the  house  of  commons.  It  has  been  said  that 
the  initiation  of  these  measures  rests,  not  with 
the  house  of  commons,  but  with  the  cabinet. 
This  is  perfectly  true,  but  what  is  important 
to  observe  is  that  the  body  which  the  cabinet 
finds  it  expedient  to  consult  first  about  its 
legislative  proposals,  and  by  whose  decisions 
it  is  mainly  guided,  is  the  house  of  commons. 
Consequently  the  legislative  functions  of  the 
house  of  -lords  are,  in  the  most  important  cases 
of  -public  legislation,  the  exercise  of  powers  of 
revision  and  of  powers  of  rejection. 

The  need  of  revision  after  a  legislative 
measure  has  passed  through  the  rough-and- 
tumble  of  a  popular  assembly  is  recognized 
on  all  sides,  and  the  utility  of  the  revision 
exercised  in  the  house  of  lords  is  generally 
admitted.  What  is  sometimes  overlooked  is 
that,  though  the  lords  often  exercise  advan- 
tageously independent  powers  of  criticism, 
yet  a  large  number,  probably  the  majority, 
of  the  amendments  made  in  public  bills  after 
they  have  passed  from  the  commons  to  the 
lords  are  suggested  by  the  promoters  of 


212  PARLIAMENT 

the  bill  and  are  made,  either  in  pursuance 
of  pledges  for  further  consideration  given  in 
the  former  house,  or  to  remove  inaccuracies, 
obscurities,  inconsistencies,  or  other  defects  of 
form  which  had  been  discovered,  but  for  the 
removal  of  which  time  or  opportunity  had 
failed  in  the  initiating  house.  In  such  cases 
the  house  of  lords  might  be  considered  rather 
an  instrument  than  an  organ  of  revision. 

The  power  of  amending  a  bill  may  be  ex- 
ercised in  such  a  manner  as  to  extend  beyond 
revision  of  form  and  details,  and  to  make 
such  alterations  as  are,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  promoters,  inconsistent  with  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  the  measure.  Where 
the  power  is  so  exercised,  .the  action  of 
the  house  of  lords  is  tantamount  to  rejec- 
tion. 

How  far,  and  under  what  conditions,  is  it 
expedient  or  consistent  with  modern  con- 
stitutional practice  that  the  lords  should 
exercise  their  power  of  rejecting  a  bill  sent 
from  the  commons,  of  delaying  its  passage, 
or  of  fundamentally  altering  its  provisions? 
And,  if  differences  arise  on  these  points 
between  the  two  houses,  how  should  they  be 
determined?  To  state  these  problems  is 
to  raise  questions  which  are  of  the  greatest 
magnitude  and  difficulty,  and  which  have 
become  the  subject  of  one  of  the  sharpest 
constitutional  conflicts  of  modern  times. 

When  parliament  was  reconstituted  after 
the  restoration  of  Charles  II,  questions  were 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  213 

speedily  raised  about  the  relations  between 
the  powers  and  jurisdiction  of  the  two  houses. 
And,  at  a  somewhat  later  date,  at  times  when 
the  political  complexion  of  the  majority  in 
the  lords  was  whig  and  broad  church,  whilst 
that  of  the  commons  was  tory  and  high 
church,  the  differences  of  opinion  between  the 
two  houses  were  sometimes  serious.  But, 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  indeed  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Reform  Act  of  1832,  there  were  no  serious 
conflicts  between  them.  Nor  was  there  any 
reason  why  there  should  be.  The  causes 
and  elements  of  difference  were  absent.  The 
members  of  the  house  of  commons  were,  in 
the  main,  drawn  from  the  same  classes  as  the 
members  of  the  house  of  lords,  represented 
the  same  opinions  and  interests,  and  were,  in 
many  cases,  directly  nominated  by  individual 
peers.  Since  1832  the  position  has  been 
materially  altered.  The  extension  of  the 
franchise,  the  advance  of  democratic  ideas, 
and  the  change  of  views  about  the  powers  and 
duties  of  the  state  in  dealing  with  social  and 
economic  problems,  have  tended,  and  are 
daily  tending,  to  widen  the  gulf  between  the 
popular  house  and  the  house  which  specially 
represents  tradition,  aristocracy  and  wealth. 
The  lords  have,  for  several  generations,  met 
the  difficulties  of  the  position  by  prudently 
and  sagaciously  limiting  the  exercise  of  their 
powers.  They  no  longer  claim  the  right — 
the  constitutional  as  distinguished  from  the 


214  PARLIAMENT 

iegal  right — to  exercise  concurrent  powers  of 
legislation.  When  a  bill  is  sent  from  the 
commons,  the  lords  do  not,  in  practice, 
exercise  freely  either  the  right  to  reject  it  if 
it  is  not  in  accordance  with  their  own  views, 
or  the  right  to  make  substantial  alterations. 
What  they  claim,  according  to  an  authori- 
tative exposition  by  a  leading  member  of 
their  house,  is  the  right  and  duty  "to  arrest 
^the  progress  of  such  measures  whenever  we 
believe  that  they  have  been  insufficiently 
considered,  and  that  they  are  not  in  accord 
with  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  country." 
In  short,  the  claim  made  by  them  is  to  act 
as  arbiters  between  the  commons  and  the 
country.  The  constitutional  position  thus 
assumed  would  be  stronger  if  the  questions 
at  issue  were  questions  of  fact  or  law,  the 
decision  of  which  could  be  delegated  to  legal 
experts  and  dealt  with  in  a  strictly  judicial 
spirit.  As  it  is,  the  lords  are  open  to  the 
charge  of  being  actuated  by  political  or 
economical  motives,  and  the  need  of  devising 
some  better  method  than  now  exists  of 
reconciling  and  adjusting  differences  between 
the  two  branches  of  the  legislature  has  been 
recognized  on  all  sides.  From  the  con- 
servative point  of  view  there  are  sound  and 
solid  arguments  for  a  house  of  lords,  but  it 
would  appear  to  many  that  to  defend  an 
aristocratic  institution  with  democratic  argu- 
ments is  neither  easy  nor  safe. 

In    the    seventeenth    century    conferences 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  215 

between  the  two  houses  were  of  frequent  oc- 
currence. They  were  by  no  means  confined 
to  differences  .between  the  houses,  but  ex- 
tended to  such  subjects  as  the  proposed  union 
with  Scotland,  the  general  affairs  of  Scotland 
and  Ireland,  the  petition  of  right  and  the  bill 
of  rights,  the  army  plot  of  one  year  and  the 
popish  plot  of  another,  and,  finally,  the  im- 
peachment of  great  men.  In  fact  they  ranged 
over  the  whole  field  of  parliamentary  affairs. 
The  tendency  of  the  eighteenth  century  was 
to  limit  their  number  and  scope,  and  to  give 
them  a  more  formal  character.  They  were 
usually,  but  not  exclusively,  confined  to  cases 
of  differences  of  opinion  about  amendments 
made  by  one  house  in  bills  coming  from  the 
other,  for  it  had  become  a  rule  of  practice 
that,  while  agreement  with  any  such  amend- 
ment might  be  signified  by  message,  dis- 
agreement involved  a  conference.  These 
conferences  were  conducted  by  "managers" 
appointed  by  each  house,  the  etiquette  was 
very  strict,  and  the  proceedings  were  very 
formal.  The  lords  sat  with  their  hats  on  their 
heads,  the  members  of  the  commons  stood 
bareheaded.  One  of  the  managers  from  the 
house  which  initiated  the  conference  read  out 
the  reasons  for  disagreement,  and  delivered 
the  paper  on  which  they  were  written  to 
one  of  the  managers  of  the  other  house. 
Then  the  managers  parted  and  each  set  of 
managers  reported  the  proceedings  to  the 
house  from  which  they  came.  That  was  all. 


216  PARLIAMENT 

These  formal  conferences  were  sometimes 
supplemented  by  what  were  called  "free 
conferences,"  affording  opportunity  for  dis- 
cussion. But  the  free  conferences  became 
formal  and  useless,  and  the  practice  of  hold- 
ing them  was  finally  abandoned  in  1740,  with 
a  single  subsequent  exception.  This  excep- 
tion was  in  1836,  when  an  abortive  attempt 
was  made  to  settle,  by  means  of  a  free  con- 
ference, a  difference  between  the  two  houses 
over  a  municipal  reform  bill.  The  practice  of 
holding  formal  conferences  survived  longer, 
and  one  of  them,  on  the  resolutions  pre- 
liminary to  the  introduction  of  the  great 
measure  of  1833  for  amending  the  charters 
of  the  East  India  Company,  is  described  by 
Macaulay  in  a  letter  to  his  sister  (June  17, 
1833).  "To-day  we  took  up  our  resolutions 
about  India  to  the  house  of  lords.  The  two 
houses  held  a  conference  on  the  subject  in  an 
old  Gothic  room  called  the  Painted  Chamber. 
The  painting  consists  of  a  mildewed  daub  of 
a  woman  in  the  niche  of  one  of  the  windows. 
The  lords  sat  in  little  cocked  hats  along  a 
table;  and  we  stood  uncovered  on  the  other 
side  and  delivered  in  our  resolutions.  I 
thought  that  before  long  it  may  be  our  turn 
to  sit,  and  theirs  to  stand."  These  con- 
ferences involved,  among  other  inconven- 
iences, a  temporary  suspension  of  the  business 
of  both  houses.  At  last  it  occurred  to  some 
sensible  person  that  the  reasons  for  a  dis- 
agreement might  as  well  be  signified  by 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  217 

message  as  at  a  conference,  and  accordingly, 
by  resolutions  of  both  houses,  agreed  to  at 
conferences  held  in  May  1851,  messages  were 
substituted  for  conferences  unless  a  confer- 
ence, was  preferred.  The  change  was  permis- 
sive only,  the  old  procedure  by  conferences 
has  never  been  finally  abolished,  and  it  would 
still  be  open  to  any  member  of  the  house, 
with  an  antiquarian  turn  of  mind,  to  move 
that  it  should  be  revived.  But  such  a 
motion  is  not  likely  to  be  made.  What 
happens  in  the  present  day,  when  there  is 
a  disagreement  over  amendments  in  a  bill, 
is  that  private  and  informal  conferences 
take  place,  between  prominent  members  of 
both  parties  in  the  case  of  an  important 
government  bill,  or  between  the  promoters 
and  opponents  or  critics  of  a  bill  in  the  case  of 
other  measures,  and  attempts  are  made  to 
arrive  at  some  compromise.  If  the  attempts 
are  unsuccessful,  the  bill  drops  and  fails  to 
become  law,  for  concurrence  of  both  houses 
is  needed  before  a  bill  can  be  submitted  for  the 
king's  assent. 

Messages  still  frequently  pass  from  one 
house  to  the  other,  and  mainly  relate  to  bills, 
conveying  information  as  to  what  either  house 
has  done  on  a  bill  or  wishes  the  other  to  do. 
In  former  times  these  messages  used  to  be 
brought  from  the  lords  by  masters  in  Chan- 
cery, legal  functionaries  with  large  emolu- 
ments and  small  duties,  who  were  abolished 
in  the  last  century.  Messages  from  the  com- 


218  PARLIAMENT 

mons  were  brought  up  by  the  members  them- 
selves, and  in  1831  and  1832  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell brought  his  reform  bills  in  his  own  hands 
to  the  bar  of  the  house  of  lords.  At  the  pres- 
ent day  these  messages  are  brought  from 
each  house  by  the  clerk  of  the  house,  who 
may  be  seen  occasionally  attending  for  this 
purpose  in  his  wig  and  gown  at  the  bar  of 
the  other  house. 

The  rejection  of  the  Finance  Bill  in  1909, 
following,  as  it  did,  the  rejection  of  other 
important  government  measures,  brought  the 
differences  between  the  two  houses  to  a 
crisis.  A  general  election  ensued,  and  main- 
tained Mr.  Asquith's  government  in  power, 
though  with  a  reduced  majority.  The 
Finance  Bill  of  the  year  was  re-introduced  in 
the  new  parliament  and  became  law.  The 
government  introduced  a  Parliament  Bill 
which  was  based  on  resolutions  passed  by  the 
house  of  commons  in  June  1907  and  proposed 
to  regulate  by  statute  the  relations  between 
the  houses.  The  bill  was  read  a  second  time, 
but  further  proceedings  on  it  were  stayed  by 
the  death  of  King  Edward  VII.  A  con- 
ference on  the  subject  was  then  held  between 
eight  members  of  the  two  houses,  four  from 
each  political  party,  and  this  conference  was 
still  sitting  when  parliament  adjourned  for  an 
autumn  recess.  When  Parliament  re-assem- 
bled in  November  1910  it  was  announced 
that  the  conference  had  failed  to  arrive  at  an 
agreement.  Some  important  debates  took 


THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  219 

place  in  the  house  of  lords,  and  that  house 
passed  resolutions  of  a  general  character  for 
reforming  their  constitution  and  for  regulat- 
ing the  relations  between  the  two  houses. 

The  general  election  of  December  1910 
gave  the  government  a  majority  practically 
identical  with  that  with  which  they  went  to 
the  country.  The  parliament  bill  was  re- 
introduced  at  the  beginning  of  the  session  of 
1911,  and  is  still  under  discussion. 

The  proposals  of  the  bill  are — 

1.  If  the  lords  withhold  their  assent  to  a 
money  bill  for  more  than  one  month  after  the 
bill  has  reached  them,  the  bill  may  be  pre- 
sented for  the  king's  assent,  and,  on  that 
assent  being  given,  will  become  law  without 
the  consent  of  the  lords.    It  is  for  the  Speaker 
of  the  house  of  commons  to  decide  whether 
a  bill  is  a  money  bill  or  not. 

2.  If  a  bill  other  than  a  money  bill  is 
passed  by  the  commons  in  three  successive 
sessions,  whether  of  the  same  parliament  or 
not,  it  may,  on  a  third  rejection  by  the  lords, 
be  presented  for  the  king's  assent,  and  on 
that  assent  being  given,   will   become  law. 
But  two  years  must  elapse  between  the  first 
introduction  of  the  bill  and  the  date  at  which 
it  passes  the  commons  a  third  time. 

3.  Five  years  is  substituted  for  seven  years 
as  the  maximum  duration  of  a  parliament. 


CHAPTER  X 

COMPARATIVE 

THE  phrase  "mother  of  parliaments,"  as 
applied  to  the  parliament  at  Westminster, 
has  become  so  terribly  hackneyed  that  one 
is  almost  ashamed  to  repeat  it.  But  it 
expresses  an  important  historical  truth.  It 
is  a  fact  that  the  constitution  and  procedure 
of  the  legislature  in  every  other  country, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  Hungary,  are 
copied,  directly  or  indirectly  from,  or,  at 
least,  based  on  ideas  suggested  by,  the  English 
model. 

The  first  of  these  copyists  were,  as  was 
proper  and  natural,  men  who  were  our  own 
kith  and  kin,  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States.  And  it  is  specially 
instructive  to  compare  the  ways  of  the  British 
parliament  with  the  ways  of  the  American 
congress,  because  the  comparison  shows  how 
a  people  starting  with  the  same  habits,  tradi- 
tions and  modes  of  thought  as  our  own,  may, 
by  making  a  cardinal  point  of  a  different 
constitutional  principle,  the  severance  of 
executive  and  legislative  authority,  arrive 
at  curiously  different  results. 
220 


COMPARATIVE 

The  delegates  who  met  in  convention  at 
Philadelphia  in  1787,  under  the  presidency 
of  George  Washington,  and  with  Alexander 
Hamilton  as  their  master  spirit,  to  devise  a 
form  of  common  government  for  the  thirteen 
American  States  who  had  obtained  their 
independence,  naturally  looked  in  the  first 
instance,  for  guidance  and  suggestion,  to 
the  forms  of  government  then  existing  in 
their  own  States. 

The  constitutions  of  these  States  had  been 
developed  out  of  charters  granted  to  them  by 
the  king  when  they  were  English  colonies, 
and  differed  in  various  particulars.  But 
they  all  had  two  features  in  common. 

In  each  of  them  there  was  a  governor  and 
a  legislature;  and  the  governor,  who  was 
at  the  head  of  the  executive  power,  was 
independent  of,  and  not  responsible  to,  the 
legislature.  In  none  of  them  was  the  execu- 
tive government  conducted  by  ministers  who 
were  members  of  and  responsible  to  the 
legislature.  In  none  of  them  was  there  a 
system  of  cabinet  government,  or  parlia- 
mentary government,  such  as  exists  at  the 
present  day  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  in 
the  British  self-governing  dominions  beyond 
the  seas.  And,  if  we  ask  why  parliamentary 
or  cabinet  government  has  not  taken  root 
in  the  United  States,  whilst  it  has  taken  root 
in  all  the  British  self-governing  dominions, 
perhaps  the  chief  reason  is  historical,  namely, 
that  the  constitution  of  the  old  American 


222  PARLIAMENT 

colonies,  of  the  States  which  succeeded  them, 
and  of  the  federal  government  which  held 
these  States  together,  was  suggested  by  and 
resembled  the  English  constitution  before 
the  cabinet  system  had  grown  up  or  its 
principles  were  understood,  whilst  the  con- 
stitutions of  the  modern  British  self-governing 
dominions  are  modelled  on  the  existing 
constitution  of  the  United  Kingdom. 
'  The  separation  of  the  executive  from  the 
legislature  was  thus  one  of  the  common 
features  in  the  constitutions  of  the  American 
States  at  the  time  of  their  union.  Another 
was  that  in  almost  all  of  them  the  legislature 
then  consisted  (in  all  of  them  it  now  consists) 
of  two  houses.  The  need  for  two  chambers 
has  since  then  been  exalted  into  an  axiom  of 
political  science,  and  may  at  least  claim  to  be 
a  political  dogma  which  has  obtained  very 
general  acceptance.  But,  according  to  Mr. 
Bryce,  the  origin  of  the  two-chamber  system 
in  America  is  to  be  sought  rather  in  history 
than  in  theory,  and  is  due,  partly  to  the 
previous  existence  in  some  colonies  of  a 
small  governor's  council  in  addition  to  the 
popular  representative  body,  partly  to  a 
natural  disposition  to  imitate  the  mother 
country,  with  its  lords  and  commons. 

These,  then,  were  the  models  which  the 
framers  of  the  United  States  constitution  had 
before  them,  State  constitutions  with  the 
executive  independent  of  the  legislature,  and 
with  the  legislature  divided  into  two  houses 


COMPARATIVE  223 

or  chambers.  And  in  adopting  these  two 
features  they  were  influenced,  not  only  by 
the  natural  tendency  to  imitation,  but  also 
by  general  considerations  and  practical  needs. 
Among  the  political  ideas  which  were  "in 
the  air"  in  the  eighteenth  century  there  was 
none  that  exercised  greater  influence  on  the 
American  mind  than  the  doctrine  of  the 
separation  of  powers.  This  doctrine  owed  its 
popularity  to  Montesquieu,  who  had  based 
it  on  a  generalization,  a  hasty  and  imperfect 
generalization,  from  certain  features  of  the 
British  constitution.  According  to  this  doc- 
trine the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial 
functions  of  the  State  ought  to  be  separate 
from  and  independent  of  each  other.  There 
ought  to  be  separate  organs  for  each,  working 
together,  but  none  of  them  dependent  on  the 
other.  The  men  who  met  at  Philadelphia 
found  some  support  for  this  doctrine  in  the 
existing  constitutions  of  their  own  States; 
it  was  consonant  with  their  views  as  to  the 
expediency  of  guarding  against  the  risk 
of  concentrating  powers  on  a  single  man 
or  set  of  men;  and  they  adopted  it  as  a  car- 
dinal principle  of  their  new  constitution. 
They  were  naturally  disposed  also  to  divide 
their  legislature  into  two  houses  as  the  legis- 
latures in  most  of  their  States  were  divided. 
And  they  found  in  this  division  a  solution  of 
the  greatest  practical  difficulty  which  they 
had  to  encounter,  that  of  reconciling  the 
demand  for  a  common  government  with  the 


224  PARLIAMENT 

demand  of  the  smaller  States  for  recognition 
and  safe-guarding  of  their  separate  rights. 
Under  the  constitution  which  they  devised, 
the  house  of  representatives  was  to  represent 
the  nation  on  the  basis  of  population,  whilst 
the  senate  was  to  represent  the  States.  There 
were  to  be,  and  are,  two  senators  from  each 
State,  small  or  large,  but  the  representatives 
in  the  other  house  were  to  be,  and  are,  dis- 
tributed among  the  States  in  proportion  to 
population,  so  that  the  more  populous  States 
outweigh  the  others. 

Thus  came  into  being  the  president,  repre- 
senting the  executive  power,  the  two  houses 
of  congress,  representing  the  legislative  power, 
and  the  supreme  court,  representing  the 
judicial  power,  each  authority  independent 
within  its  own  sphere. 

Suppose  a  visitor  from  England,  familiar 
with  the  working  of  parliamentary  govern- 
ment at  Westminster,  were  to  arrive  at 
Washington  at  the  beginning  of  a  new  session, 
what  resemblances  and  differences  would  be 
likely  to  strike  him? 

The  first  thing  that  would  probably  strike 
him  in  both  houses  of  the  legislature  would 
be  the  absence  of  anything  corresponding  to 
the  treasury  or  government  bench.  Under 
the  constitution  no  person  holding  any  office 
under  the  United  States  can  be  a  member 
of  either  house  of  congress  during  his  con- 
tinuance in  office.  Consequently,  neither  the 
president,  nor  his  cabinet,  the  ministers  who 


COMPARATIVE  225 

are  at  the  head  of  his  executive  departments, 
can  sit  in  either  house.  In  England  the 
ministers  who  are  responsible  for  the  execu- 
tive work  of  government  are  members  of  one 
of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature;  they 
are  responsible  for  their  actions  to  parlia- 
ment, and  in  particular  to  the  house  of  com- 
mons; and,  in  turn,  they  can,  as  leaders  of 
the  dominant  party,  influence  and  control 
the  action  of  that  house. 

In  the  United  States  the  president  does 
not  enjoy  the  immunity  from  responsibility 
for  political  and  administrative  action  which 
attaches  to  the  English  king,  but  he  has  more 
power:  he  not  only  reigns,  but  governs.  He 
and  his  ministers  have  not  to  answer  for 
their  actions  to  congress  as  the  king's  minis- 
ters have  to  answer  for  their  actions  to  par- 
liament; but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  can- 
not, like  English  ministers,  guide  and  control 
the  action  of  the  legislature. 

By  another  article  of  the  constitution  the 
president  is  required  to  recommend  to  the 
consideration  of  congress  such  measures  as  he 
shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient.  He 
does  so  by  a  message  to  congress  at  the 
beginning  of  the  session,  and  thus  his  message 
bears  some  resemblance  to  the  king's  speech 
at  the  opening  of  parliament.  But  what  a 
difference!  The  king's  speech  is  prepared 
by  the  king's  ministers,  and  contains  a  pro- 
gramme of  their  legislative  policy.  This 
programme  they  are  in  a  position  to  carry 


226  PARLIAMENT 

out,  so  far  as  time  and  circumstances  permit, 
with  the  aid  of  their  party,  and  for  any  failure 
to  carry  it  out  they  will  be  called  to  account. 
But  the  president  has  no  ministers  to  repre- 
sent him  in  congress,  or  to  give  effect  to  his 
wishes  and  intentions  about  legislation.  His 
message  is  duly  read,  is  duly  referred,  with- 
out debate,  to  the  appropriate  committee,  and 
nothing  more  need  be  heard  of  it.  It  some- 
times suggests  a  great  explosion  with  blank 
cartridge. 

The  English  visitor  would  probably  note 
in  the  procedure  of  congress  sundry  forms 
and  usages  which  will  remind  him  of  West- 
minster. This  is  not  surprising.  Thomas 
Jefferson,  when  vice-president  of  the  United 
States,  and  therefore  president  of  the  senate, 
compiled,  for  the  use  of  the  senate,  a  manual 
of  procedure  based  on  the  practice,  rul- 
ings and  precedents  of  the  English  par- 
liament, and  Jefferson's  manual  is  still  au- 
thoritative for  the  procedure  of  both  houses 
of  congress. 

But  if  the  visitor  attends  the  sittings  of 
congress,  especially  of  the  larger  and  more 
popular  house,  the  house  of  representatives, 
which  corresponds  in  some  measure  to  the 
house  of  commons,  he  will  note  differences 
greater  than  the  resemblances. 

There  is  not  so  much  debating.  The  room 
of  assembly  is  larger  than  the  house  of 
commons  at  Westminster,  and  the  accom- 
modation for  members  is  ampler  and  more 


COMPARATIVE 

convenient.  But  the  acoustic  qualities  are 
inferior.  It  is  difficult  for  a  member  to  make 
himself  heard,  and  easy  debate  in  a  conver- 
sational tone  is  impossible.  That  is  one 
reason.  Other  reasons  are,  that  the  less 
formal  sittings  of  the  house,  which  in  England 
are  called  committees  of  the  whole  house 
and  in  the  United  States  committees  of 
the  whole,  are  less  frequent  at  Washington 
than  at  Westminster,  and  that  at  Washington 
both  the  first  and  the  second  reading  of  bills 
are  formal  stages,  and  every  bill  goes  to  some 
one  of  the  numerous  committees  of  the 
house,  and  from  these  committees  most  bills 
never  emerge.  It  is  in  these  committees 
that  is  done  the  bulk  of  the  legislative 
business  of  congress,  including  the  financial 
business  done  at  Westminster  in  committee 
of  supply  and  in  the  proceedings  on  the 
budget.  Congressional  government  is  gov- 
ernment by  committees  of  congress. 

The  visitor  to  Washington  might  have  the 
curiosity  to  look  at  the  list  of  the  bills  intro- 
duced into  congress,  and  to  examine  some  of 
them,  and  see  how  they  compare  with  bills 
introduced  at  Westminster.  Here  again  he 
would  find  startling  differences.  The  total 
number  of  bills,  public  and  private,  intro- 
duced in  a  single  session  of  parliament  is 
to  be  counted  by  hundreds.  In  the  sixtieth 
congress  at  Washington  44,500  bills  and 
resolutions  were  introduced.  By  resolutions 
are  meant  legislative  proposals,  not  techni- 


228  PARLIAMENT 

cally  in  the  form  of  bills.  Of  all  these  bills 
and  legislative  proposals  only  about  275 
became  law — the  remainder  found  a  burial- 
place  in  the  committees  to  which  they  were 
consigned.  Thus  the  total  output  of  legisla- 
tion did  not  differ  much  from  that  of  an 
average  English  session,  but  the  proportion 
between  bills  introduced  and  bills  passed 
differed  enormously. 

In  American  bills  the  English  distinction 
between  government  bills  and  private  mem- 
bers' bills  is,  of  course,  absent,  for  the  execu- 
tive government  is  not  represented  in  the 
house  by  any  of  its  members.  If  the  presi- 
dent, or  if  any  of  his  ministers,  wishes  to  have 
a  particular  bill  introduced,  he  must  apply 
to  some  unofficial  member  of  congress,  and 
the  bill,  when  introduced,  will  take  its  chance 
with  other  bills. 

Nor  is  there  any  distinction  between  public 
and  private  bills.  The  great  majority  of  the 
bills  introduced  deal  with  local  and  personal 
questions  and  would  be  classed  in  England 
as  private  bills,  and  very  many  of  them  deal 
with  some  single  matter  such  as  the  grant 
of  a  pension  to  a  particular  person  or  the 
frontage  of  a  particular  building.  They  are 
suggested  by  and  designed  to  meet  some 
individual  case,  not  to  effect  any  general 
change  in  the  law.  Many  of  them  also 
deal  with  matters  which  in  England  would 
be  left  to  executive  orders  and  regulations. 
Where,  as  in  the  United  States,  a  line  is 


COMPARATIVE  229 

drawn  between  the  region  of  legislation 
and  the  region  of  executive  government,  the 
legislature  is  always  to  be  found  crossing 
the  boundary  and  poaching  in  its  neigh- 
bour's preserves.  In  congress,  ministers  can- 
not be  jogged  to  action  by  questions  and 
motions. 

In  England,  as  has  been  seen,  the  ministry 
are  mainly  responsible  for  arranging  the 
business,  and  distributing  the  time  of  the 
house  of  commons.  They  thus  act  as  a 
business  committee  of  the  house.  In  the 
house  of  representatives  there  is  no  such 
committee,  but  the  Speaker  to  some  extent 
takes  its  place,  and  wields  powers  which  place 
him  in  an  entirely  different  position  from  the 
Speaker  of  the  house  of  commons.  All  the 
business  of  the  house  is  distributed  among, 
and  for  the  most  part  transacted  in,  some 
one  of  the  fifty  odd  standing  committees 
which  are  appointed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
session,  and  it  is  the  Speaker  that  nominates 
the  members  of  these  committees,  and  also 
appoints  their  chairmen.  Among  these  com- 
mittees are  the  committees  of  ways  and 
means  and  of  appropriations,  which  regulate 
the  taxation  and  expenditure  of  the  federal 
government,  and  the  rules  committee,  which 
determines  whether  special  facilities  should 
be  given  for  the  consideration  of  such  bills 
as  succeed  in  emerging  from  the  committees 
to  which  they  have  been  referred.  Without 
such  facilities  no  important  bills  could  pass, 


230  PARLIAMENT 

and  the  facilities  granted  often  include  strin- 
gent limitations  of  time  and  speech,  more 
stringent  than  those  imposed  by  the  English 
"closure"  or  "guillotine."  The  constitution 
of  these  committees  is  the  first  piece  of  work 
which  the  Speaker  has  to  undertake  after  his 
appointment,  and  probably  the  most  difficult 
and  anxious  work  which  he  has  to  perform, 
for  on  the  way  in  which  it  is  performed  de- 
pends the  course  of  business  in  the  session. 
Thus  the  American  Speaker  is  not,  like  his 
prototype  at  Westminster,  an  impartial  and 
judicial  presiding  authority,  but  a  powerful 
party  leader. 

Last,  but  not  least,  among  the  differences 
between  parliament  and  congress  may  be 
noted  the  fact  that  parliament  is  supreme 
and  uncontrolled  in  the  exercise  of  its  legis- 
lative powers,  unfettered  by  a  written  con- 
stitution or  by  membership  of  a  federal 
community.  To  use  the  language  of  an 
authoritative  writer,  "parliament  is  a  sover- 
eign and  constituent  assembly.  It  can  make 
and  unmake  any  and  every  law,  change  the 
form  of  government  and  the  succession  to 
the  crown,  interfere  with  the  course  of  jus- 
tice, extinguish  the  most  sacred  private  rights 
of  the  citizen.  Between  it  and  the  people  at 
large  there  is  no  legal  distinction,  because 
the  whole  plenitude  of  the  people's  rights 
and  powers  resides  in  it.  Both  practically 
and  legally  it  is  the  only  and  the  supreme 
depositary  of  the  authority  of  the  nation, 


COMPARATIVE  231 

and  is  therefore,  within  the  sphere  of  law, 
irresponsible  and  omnipotent." 

Such  are  some  of  the  resemblances  and 
differences,  of  which  the  most  complete  and 
masterly  exposition  is  to  be  found  in  Mr. 
Bryce's  American  Commonwealth,  and  they 
will  suffice  to  show  how  widely  the  charac- 
teristics of  the  American  legislature  have 
diverged  from  those  of  the  venerable  body 
which  may  fairly  claim  to  be  its  parent 
stock. 

We  may  pass  to  the  continent  of  Europe. 
When  the  Napoleonic  deluge  subsided  in  the 
early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  it  left 
all  the  European  governments  shattered  and 
in  ruins.  The  constitution  of  the  United 
Kingdom  alone  remained  standing  and  ap- 
parently unshaken,  and  it  was  to  England 
that  statesmen  looked  for  their  model  when 
they  set  about  to  repair  old  or  build  new 
constitutions.  Hence  came  the  legislative 
bodies,  each  with  two  chambers  or  houses, 
which  were  called  into  existence  in  most 
parts  of  Europe  during  the  last  century. 
The  procedure  also  of  continental  parlia- 
ments is  largely  modelled  on,  and  copied 
directly  or  indirectly  from,  the  procedure  of 
the  house  of  commons  at  Westminster.  The 
National  Assembly,  which  was  the  first 
product  of  the  French  Revolution  of  1789, 
had  no  rules  of  procedure,  and  was  a  dis- 
orderly body.  Mirabeau  obtained  from 
Dumont,  whose  name  was  afterwards  so 


232  PARLIAMENT 

closely  associated  with  Bentham,  a  digest, 
which  had  been  made  by  Romilly  and  trans- 
lated into  French  by  Dumont,  of  the  rules 
of  procedure  observed  in  the  British  house  of 
commons.  Mirabeau  laid  a  printed  copy  of 
this  translation  on  the  table  of  the  French  as- 
sembly, as  a  model  which  might  be  advan- 
tageously followed.  But  the  assembly  would 
have  none  of  it.  "It  is  English,"  they  said, 
"and  we  don't  want  anything  English,"  so  it 
was  laid  aside.  But  it  did  not  perish,  and  it 
is  said  to  have  been  used  as  the  basis  of  the 
rules  of  procedure  adopted  by  the  French 
chamber  of  deputies  after  the  restoration  of 
Louis  XVIII.  In  any  case,  the  procedure 
then  adopted  in  France  was  evidently  fash- 
ioned on  an  English  model,  and  has  influ- 
enced the  procedure  of  all  other  European 
countries  with  parliamentary  institutions. 
Thus  the  rules  of  parliamentary  procedure 
in  all  these  countries  can  be  traced,  directly 
or  indirectly,  back  to  Westminster  as  their 
fountain  head. 

Of  the  European  constitutions  some,  such 
as  Germany,  Austria-Hungary  and  Switzer- 
land, are  federal  in  their  character,  but  the 
form  of  federation  differs  widely  in  these 
three  cases.  In  almost  all  there  are  two 
legislative  chambers,  composed  and  elected 
in  different  ways.  In  none  of  them  is  the 
second  or  upper  chamber  wholly  hereditary. 
In  France,  Belgium,  Holland  and  Sweden, 
the  second  chamber  is  wholly  elective.  In 


COMPARATIVE  233 

Norway  it  is  little  more  than  a  committee 
of  the  other  chamber.  In  Italy  the  mem- 
bers of  the  senate  are  nominated  for  life 
by  the  king,  on  the  advice  of  his  min- 
isters, that  is  to  say,  by  the  government  of 
the  day. 

The  relations  of  the  head  of  the  executive 
government,  whether  he  is  emperor,  king,  or 
president,  to  the  legislature  also  differ  widely 
in  the  different  countries.  In  neither  Ger- 
many nor  Austria  is  there  cabinet  or  par- 
liamentary government  in  the  English  sense. 
The  emperor  selects  his  own  ministers,  and 
their  continuance  in  office  does  not  depend 
on  the  good-will  of  the  legislature.  But  he  is 
dependent  for  his  resources  on  taxes  voted 
by  the  legislature,  and  therefore  he  is  liable 
to  find  himself  in  financial  difficulties  unless 
his  ministers  can  obtain  the  support  of  some 
combination  of  parties  or  groups  command- 
ing a  majority  within  the  legislature.  The 
government  in  these  countries  is  government 
by  officials,  who  are  more  or  less  controlled 
by  assemblies  elected  on  a  more  or  less  demo- 
cratic franchise. 

In  France,  Italy,  Belgium  and  Holland 
(the  list  is  not  exhaustive)  there  is  a  system 
of  parliamentary  government  much  more 
closely  resembling  that  of  the  United  King- 
dom. In  France  the  president,  in  Italy  and 
Belgium  the  king,  in  Holland  the  queen,  is 
not  a  personal  ruler,  but,  like  the  king  of 
England,  governs  through  ministers  who  are 


234  PARLIAMENT 

members  of  the  legislature,  and  are  responsi- 
ble to  it  for  their  actions. 

Let  us  cross  to  France,  as  our  nearest 
neighbour,  and  see  how  the  legislature  which 
sits  at  Paris  compares  with  the  parliament 
which  sits  at  Westminster.  There  are  two 
houses  of  the  French  legislature,  the  chamber 
of  deputies,  consisting  of  584  members,  who 
are  elected  directly  for  a  term  of  four  years 
by  universal  suffrage,  and  the  senate  con- 
sisting of  300  senators,  who  are  elected  for 
nine  years,  under  a  system  of  indirect  elec- 
tion, and  of  whom  one-third  retire  each  year. 
A  senator  must  be  forty  years  of  age.  The 
senators  are  distributed  between  the  depart- 
ments, and,  on  the  analogy  between  a  French 
department  and  an  English  county,  the 
electors  to  the  French  senate  have  been 
roughly  compared,  for  English  readers,  to 
(1)  the  members  for  the  county,  (2)  the  chair- 
man and  members  of  the  county  council, 
(3)  the  chairman  and  members  of  the  district 
councils,  and  (4)  delegates  elected  by  the 
urban  and  parish  councils. 

The  French  senate  is  a  dignified  body  and 
contains  men  of  great  eminence,  ability,  and 
political  experience.  Its  powers  are  in  some 
respects  greater  than  those  of  the  English 
house  of  lords,  for,  though  it  cannot  initiate 
financial  measures,  it  claims  and  exercises 
the  right  of  amending  them.  But,  politically 
it  is  a  much  weaker  body  than  the  chamber 
of  deputies.  An  adverse  vote  of  the  senate 


COMPARATIVE  235 

has,  on  one  or  two  occasions,  precipitated 
the  fate  of  a  weak  ministry,  but  these  have 
been  exceptional  cases.  It  is  to  the  more 
popular  chamber,  the  chamber  of  deputies, 
that  the  French  ministry  is  primarily  re- 
sponsible, and  it  is  on  the  support  of  that 
chamber  that  its  existence  depends. 

The  two  houses  of  the  French  legislature 
are  not  lodged  in  the  same  building,  as  at 
Westminster  and  Washington,  but  occupy 
different  buildings,  which  are  at  some  little 
distance  from  each  other,  and  both  of  which 
are  palaces  dating  from  the  French  monarchy. 
The  senate  are  to  be  found  in  the  Palais 
Luxembourg,  the  deputies  in  what  used  to 
be  known  as  the  Palais  Bourbon. 

If  you  enter  the  hall  in  which  the  deputies 
hold  their  sittings  you  find  yourself  in  a 
room  very  different  from  the  British  house 
of  commons.  It  is  arranged  like  a  theatre, 
with  seats  in  semicircular  tiers  rising  behind 
each  other.  On  these  seats  are  the  deputies; 
in  galleries  above  them  are  the  visitors;  and 
facing  the  deputies  is  a  raised  platform,  cor- 
responding to  the  stage  of  a  theatre,  with  the 
president's  chair  and  table,  and  with  chairs 
and  tables  for  the  clerks  behind  him.  In 
front  of  the  stage  is  the  tribune,  a  little  pul- 
pit to  which  a  deputy  when  he  wishes  to 
speak  ascends  by  stairs,  and  from  which  he 
addresses  the  house.  These  differences  in 
structural  arrangements  between  the  English, 
house  and  the  French  house  correspond  to, 


236  PARLIAMENT 

and  tend  to  produce,  differences  in  the  ways 
and  procedure  of  the  house. 

In  the  house  of  commons  the  representa- 
tives of  the  two  great  political  parties,  that 
of  the  government  and  that  of  the  regular 
opposition,  sit  facing  each  other,  on  opposite 
sides  of  the  house,  and  divided  from  each 
other  by  a  broad  aisle.  The  two  minor 
parties,  that  of  the  Irish  nationalist  mem- 
bers and  that  of  the  labour  members,  find 
places  of  their  own  below  the  gangways.  In 
the  French  chamber  there  is  no  similar  line 
of  division  and  demarcation  between  the  reg- 
ular supporters  and  the  regular  opponents 
and  critics  of  the  government.  The  minis- 
ters sit  in  the  centre,  facing  the  president  and 
the  tribune.  On  either  side  of  and  behind 
them  groups  shade  into  each  other  from 
right  centre  to  extreme  right  and  from  left 
centre  to  extreme  left,  the  right  side,  which 
is  on  the  president's  right  hand,  being,  by 
tradition,  associated  with  the  more  conserv- 
ative shade  of  opinions.  The  arrangement 
of  seats  suggests  and  facilitates  action  by 
groups  rather  than  action  by  parties,  and, 
in  point  of  fact,  the  working  of  parliamentary 
government  in  France  depends,  not  as  in 
England,  on  the  alternation  in  power  of  two 
opposite  parties,  but  on  the  combination  of 
political  groups.  In  France  a  complete 
change  of  ministry,  involving  the  substitu- 
tion of  a  set  of  men  formerly  in  opposition 
for  a  set  of  men  formerly  in  office,  is  the  ex- 


COMPARATIVE  237 

ception  rather  than  the  rule.  What  more 
frequently  happens  is  a  partial  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  ministry,  leaving  some  of  its 
former  members  in  office,  but  modifying  its 
political  complexion  and  affinities  so  as  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  situation.  And  in  any 
case,  the  ministers  do  not  go  across  from  one 
side  of  the  house  to  the  other  when  they  go 
out  of  office;  the  ministry  remain  in  the  centre 
of  the  house  whichever  set  of  groups  pre- 
dominates. 

The  rule  which  requires  a  French  deputy 
to  speak  from  the  tribune  and  not  from  his 
own  place  in  the  house  seems  to  an  English 
observer  to  conduce  to  written  speeches. 
The  French  orator,  instead  of  glancing  fur- 
tively at  his  notes,  will  openly  place  before 
him,  on  the  convenient  desk  of  his  pulpit, 
the  manuscript  of  his  discourse.  Nor  is  the 
practice  useful  in  maintaining  order.  At 
Westminster  a  member  is  required  to  stand 
when  he  speaks,  and  two  members  ought  not 
to  be  on  their  feet  at  the  same  time.  But  a 
member  who  is  speaking  often  resumes  his 
seat  for  a  time  in  order  to  enable  another 
member  to  interpose  an  explanatory  or 
interlocutory  remark.  These  informal  but 
authorized  interruptions  are  inconsistent  with 
the  practice  of  speaking  from  the  tribune, 
and  consequently  a  French  member  often 
has  to  make  his  speech  under  a  running  fire 
of  irregular  interruptions  which  the  presi- 
dent endeavours  ineffectually  to  suppress 


PARLIAMENT 

with  the  help  of  his  paper-knife  and  his  bell. 
This  at  least  is  the  impression  produced  on 
an  English  visitor,  but  the  system  doubt- 
less has  countervailing  advantages  which 
a  foreigner  would  be  apt  to  undervalue  or 
overlook.  It  has  been  said,  and  probably 
with  truth,  that  in  the  French  house  there 
is  more  finished  oratory,  and  that  the  style 
is  less  conversational  and  slipshod,  than  at 
Westminster. 

These  are  surface  differences,  which  would 
strike  the  casual  visitor.  Observation  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  French  chamber  would 
soon  disclose  other  differences  of  great  im- 
portance between  its  ways  and  the  ways  of 
the  English  house  of  commons.  Among  them 
is  the  committee  system,  which  differs  mate- 
rially both  from  the  practice  at  Westminster 
and  from  the  practice  at  Washington.  The 
members  of  the  chamber  are  distributed  by 
lot  among  eleven  bureaus,  and  these  bureaus 
are  redistributed  every  month.  The  main 
function  of  the  bureaus  is  to  appoint  mem- 
bers of  the  committees  to  which  all  bills  are 
referred  before  discussion  of  them  in  the 
house.  Every  bill  goes  for  preliminary  dis- 
cussion to  one  of  these  committees,  and  when 
it  emerges  it  is  placed  in  charge,  not  of  the 
member  who  introduced  it  into  the  house, 
but  of  the  member  who  is  appointed  by  the 
committee  as  its  reporter  to  the  house.  The 
most  powerful  of  these  committees  is  the 
budget  committee,  to  which  the  annual 


COMPARATIVE  239 

budget  bill  is  referred,  and  the  result  of  the 
French  system  is  that  the  French  finance 
minister  loses  that  responsibility  for,  and 
preponderating  control  over,  the  fortunes  of 
his  financial  proposals  which  is  retained  by 
the  English  chancellor  of  the  exchequer. 

In  France  and  in  other  European  countries 
under  parliamentary  government  political 
principles  of  English  origin  have  been  grafted 
on  institutions  differing  widely  from  those 
of  England  in  their  history,  tradition,  and 
forms  of  procedure,  and  have  often  been 
curiously  metamorphosed  in  their  adaptation 
to  their  new  and  strange  surroundings.  In 
the  British  empire  the  great  self-governing 
dominions  beyond  the  seas  have  not  only 
copied  British  forms  of  parliamentary  govern- 
ment but  have  inherited  British  traditions, 
usages,  and  modes  of  thought. 

The  British  possessions  which  used  to  be 
classed  under  the  common  name  of  colony 
have  now  been  divided  into  two  classes — 
dominions  and  colonies.  The  former  class 
consists  of  the  three  federations  of  Canada, 
Australia  and  South  Africa,  together  with 
Newfoundland  and  New  Zealand.  The  latter 
class  includes  the  West  Indian  Islands,  and 
the  numerous  crown  colonies  which  are 
scattered  over  various  parts  of  the  world. 
The  dominions  enjoy  what  is  called  responsi- 
ble government,  that  is  to  say,  they  are 
governed,  in  the  English  fashion,  by  minis- 
ters who  are  responsible  to  the  legislature, 


240  PARLIAMENT 

and  dependent  for  their  existence  on  the  sup- 
port of  a  majority  in  the  legislature.  In  the 
other  class  the  control  of  the  legislature  over 
the  executive  government  is  either  absent 
or  less  complete,  and  the  dependence  on  the 
colonial  office  in  England  is  greater.  For  the 
purposes  of  comparison  with  parliamentary 
government  in  England  we  may  dismiss 
from  consideration  the  crown  colonies,  and 
confine  our  attention  to  the  self-governing 
dominions.  And  we  may  select  for  com- 
parison three  main  points  of  agreement  and 
three  main  points  of  differences. 

First,  as  to  the  points  of  agreement.  In 
the  self-governing  dominions,  (1)  the  legisla- 
ture, with  a  few  exceptions,  consists  of  two 
chambers,  (2)  the  executive  government  is 
responsible  to  the  legislature,  and  (3)  the 
procedure  of  the  legislative  bodies  is  modelled 
closely  on  parliamentary  procedure  in  Eng- 
land. The  first  chamber  is  always  elective. 
The  second  chamber  is  constituted  in  different 
ways.  The  members  of  the  second  chamber 
of  the  dominion  of  Canada  are  nominated 
for  life  by  the  crown,  that  is  to  say,  by  the 
governor  general  acting  on  the  advice  of  his 
Canadian  ministers.  The  members  of  the 
Australian  senate  are  elected  on  a  wide 
popular  suffrage.  In  constituting  the  senate 
of  the  new  South  African  federation  the 
experiment  of  proportional  representation 
has  been  tried.  Each  of  the  provinces  of 
the  dominion  of  Canada  has,  with  two  excep- 


COMPARATIVE  241 

tions,  Quebec  and  Nova  Scotia,  only  a  single 
legislative  chamber.  In  four  of  the  States 
which  make  up  the  Australian  Common- 
wealth the  members  of  the  second  chamber 
are  elected;  in  the  two  others,  New  South 
Wales  and  Queensland,  they  are  nominated 
for  life.  In  New  Zealand  the  members  of  the 
second  chamber  are  nominated  for  a  term  of 
years.  Where  the  second  chamber  is  elected, 
the  franchise  for  election  is  usually  more  re- 
stricted than  that  for  election  to  the  first 
chamber.  But  there  is  an  important  excep- 
tion in  the  case  of  the  Australian  Common- 
wealth, where  the  franchise  for  election  to 
both  the  chambers  is  the  same.  It  must  be 
added  that  the  working  of  the  two-chamber 
system  in  these  countries  has  not  been  al- 
together satisfactory.  The  Canadian  nom- 
inee senate  is  said  to  be  weak,  not  in  the  sense 
that  its  members  are  wanting  in  character  or 
ability,  but  in  the  sense  that  it  exercises  little 
political  power,  and  proposals  for  amending 
its  constitution  are  under  consideration.  In 
Canada  most  of  the  older  provinces  have  dis- 
carded the  two-chamber  principle,  and  the 
newer  provinces  have  not  adopted  it.  All  the 
colonies  which  are  now  the  States  of  the  Aus- 
tralian Commonwealth  have  a  second  cham- 
ber, but  in  most  of  them  there  have  been 
violent  conflicts  between  the  two  chambers. 
The  senate  of  the  Commonwealth,  which  was 
intended  to  be  conservative,  is  said  to  have 
proved  in  practice  to  be  more  democratic  than 
the  other  chamber. 


242  PARLIAMENT 

The  broad  principles  on  which  responsible 
government  on  the  English  type  might  be 
granted  to  a  colony  were  first  laid  down  in 
Lord  Durham's  famous  report  of  1838  on 
the  provinces  of  Upper  and  Lower  Canada. 
"Every  purpose  of  popular  control,"  he  said, 
"might  be  combined  with  every  advantage 
of  vesting  the  immediate  choice  of  advisers 
in  the  crown,  were  the  colonial  governor  to 
be  instructed  to  secure  the  co-operation  of 
the  assembly  in  his  policy  by  entrusting  its 
administration  to  such  men  as  could  com- 
mand a  majority,  and  if  he  were  given  to  un- 
derstand that  he  need  count  on  no  aid  from 
home  in  any  differences  with  the  assembly 
that  should  not  directly  involve  the  relations 
between  the  mother  country  and  colony." 
It  is  in  accordance  with  the  principles  thus 
laid  down  that  responsible  government  has 
been  developed  in  the  British  colonies  now 
known  as  dominions.  ^ 

The  principles  on  which  thatformof  govern- 
ment rests  will  not  be  found  embodied  in  their 
constitutions,  any  more  than  the  identical 
principles  of  cabinet  or  parliamentary  govern- 
ment in  the  United  Kingdom  are  to  be  found 
in  any  Act  of  Parliament.  To  establish  them 
it  has  sufficed  to  instruct  the  governor  that 
he  is  to  select  his  advisers  from  among  those 
who  can  command  a  majority  of  the  legisla- 
ture and  to  be  guided  by  their  advice  except 
in  matters  of  imperial,  as  distinguished  from 
local,  concern.  It  was  in  this  way  that  re- 


COMPARATIVE  243 

sponsible  government  was  granted  to  the 
Transvaal.  When  this  principle  has  once 
been  recognized,  all  the  rest  follows  as  a 
matter  of  constitutional  practice. 

Lastly,  the  procedure  in  these  legislative 
bodies  follows  very  closely  the  procedure  in 
the  parliament  at  Westminster.  The  instru- 
ment of  constitution  always  contains  a  pro- 
vision that  the  procedure  of  the  legislature  is, 
in  the  absence  of  specific  direction,  to  be  in 
accordance  with  parliamentary  procedure  at 
Westminster,  and  the  standing  orders  of  the 
dominion  and  colonial  legislatures  have  drawn 
largely  from  the  classic  pages  of  May's 
Parliamentary  Procedure,  sometimes  repro- 
ducing forms  and  ceremonies  which  have 
become  obsolete  in  England. 

So  much  for  the  main  points  of  agreement 
between  the  parliamentary  government  of  the 
United  Kingdom  and  the  parliamentary  gov- 
ernment of  the  British  dominions.  The 
points  of  differences  which  may  be  noted  are 
also  three.  In  all  the  dominions  the  powers  of 
the  legislature  are  limited;  in  most  of  them 
the  form  of  government  is  federal;  in  all  of 
them  the  spirit  of  the  government  is  more 
democratic. 

The  parliament  of  the  United  Kingdom  is, 
as  has  been  seen,  supreme.  Cases  might, 
perhaps,  be  imagined  in  which  the  validity 
of  an  Act  of  Parliament  could  be  questioned 
in  a  court  of  law,  but  such  cases  do  not  occur. 
The  powers  of  a  dominion  legislature  are 


244  PARLIAMENT 

limited  in  various  ways,  and  the  validity  of 
its  enactments  is  liable  to  be  questioned, 
and  often  is  questioned,  in  courts  of  law. 
It  cannot  make  laws  in  conflict  with  any 
Act  of  Parliament  the  operation  of  which 
extends  to  the  dominion,  but  such  Acts  are 
not  numerous.  It  derives  its  powers  from  a 
written  constitution  and  cannot  exceed  the 
powers  thus  conferred  on  it.  Where  the  con- 
stitution is  federal,  the  powers  of  the  cen- 
tral legislature  and  of  the  local  legislatures 
are  limited  in  relation  to  each  other.  And 
lastly,  the  power  of  disallowing  enactments 
when  passed,  a  power  corresponding  to 
the  veto  formerly  exercised  by  the  king  in 
England,  is  still  exercised  on  behalf  of  the 
king  in  the  case  of  enactments  passed  in 
British  dominions  beyond  the  seas.  It  used 
at  one  time  to  be  very  freely  exercised,  but 
its  exercise  is  now  very  rare,  and,  as  a  rule, 
occurs  only  in  cases  where  the  legislature  has 
clearly  exceeded  its  powers  or  where  the  sub- 
ject of  legislation  is  a  matter  of  imperial,  as 
distinguished  from  local,  concern. 

Newfoundland  has  not  been  absorbed  in 
the  dominion  of  Canada.  New  Zealand  has 
remained  independent  of  the  commonwealth 
of  Australia.  But,  with  these  exceptions, 
the  self-governing  dominions  are  under  a 
federal  form  of  government.  Canada  was  the 
first  to  federate.  The  Act  of  1867,  which 
constituted  the  dominion  of  Canada,  contains 
many  features  suggested  by  the  constitution 


COMPARATIVE  245 

of  the  United  States,  but  differs  from  it  in 
important  respects,  particularly  in  entrusting 
larger  powers  to  the  central  government.  In 
the  United  States  the  presumption  is  that 
powers  not  specifically  given  to  the  federal 
government  belong  to  the  individual  States. 
In  Canada  the  presumption  is  the  other  way. 
Australia,  which  obtained  a  federal  constitu- 
tion in  1900,  reverted  more  to  the  United 
States  form  of  federation,  but  tendencies 
to  increase  the  powers  of  the  central  legisla- 
ture are  already  visible.  The  South  African 
constitution  of  1909  is  more  Unitarian  and 
less  federal,  that  is  to  say  the  powers  of  the 
central  government  are  greater,  those  of  the 
individual  states  less,  than  either  in  Canada 
or  in  Australia. 

On  the  democratic  character  of  government 
and  legislation  hi  the  British  dominions 
beyond  the  seas  it  is  unnecessary  to  enlarge. 
The  colonists  who  settled  Canada,  Australia 
and  New  Zealand  took  with  them  many 
English  traditions,  but  they  did  not  take  with 
them  the  traditions  of  English  aristocracy. 
The  existence,  in  any  of  these  countries,  of  a 
legislature  containing  any  hereditary  element 
in  its  composition  would  be  almost  inconceiv- 
able. And  the  legislative  experiments  which 
are  constantly  being  tried  in  Australia  and 
New  Zealand  show  how  powerful  is  the 
influence  exercised  by  the  working  classes 
on  the  actual  of  their  legislatures. 

These    comparisons    might    be    extended 


246  PARLIAMENT 

indefinitely,  but  we  may  end  as  we  began. 
To  the  model  parliament  held  by  the  first 
Plantagenet  Edward  may  be  traced  back  all 
the  parliaments  and  legislatures  which,  during 
the  reign  of  his  latest  namesake  on  the  English 
throne,  were  making  laws  in  every  part  of  the 
civilized  world. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

THIS  is  a  selected  list  of  books  which  the  student  will  find 
useful.  They  will  put  him  on  the  track  of  other  authorities 
and  sources  of  information. 


ORIGIN,  DEVELOPMENT  AND  WORKING  OF  THE 
CONSTITUTION. 

W.  STUBBS. — Constitutional  History  of  England. 

The  fullest  and  most  authoritative  history  of  the  English 
constitution  from  the  earliest  times  to  the  beginning  of  the 
Tudor  dynasty. 

H.  KALLAM. — Constitutional  History  of  England. 

Covers  the  period  from  the  accession  of  Henry  VII  to  the 
death  of  George  II  (1760),  and  is  still  of  great  value  for  that 
period. 

SIB  T.  EHSKINE  MAT. — Constitutional  History  of  England. 

Covers  the  period  from  1760  to  1860,  and  contains  a  supple-  ' 
mentary  chapter  dealing  with  the  subsequent  ten  years. 

F.  W.  MAITLAND. — Constitutional  History  of  England. 

Describes  the  state  of  public  law  at  five  selected  periods: 
1307,  1509,  1625,  1702,  1888.  The  most  brilliant  and  sugges- 
tive account  that  has  yet  been  written  of  the  development  of 
English  constitutional  history.  I  have  borrowed  very  freely 
from  it,  knowing  that  I  could  draw  from  no  better  source. 
249 


250  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

W.  STTTBBS. — Select  Charters  and  other  illustrations  of  English 
Constitutional  History,  from  the  earliest  times  to  the  reign 
of  Edward  the  First. 

G.  W.  PBOTHEBO. — Select  Statutes  and  other  Constitutional 
Documents  illustrative  of  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and 
James  I. 

S.  R.  GARDINER. — The  Constitutional  Documents  of  the 
Puritan  Revolution,  1625-1660. 

C.  G.  ROBERTSON. — Select  Statutes,  Cases  and  Documents  to 
illustrate  English  Constitutional  History,  1660-1832;  with 
a  supplement  from  1832  .to  1894. 

This  series,  published  by  the  Clarendon  Press,  has  valuable 
introductions  and  notes,  and  illustrates  the  original  sources 
from  which  the  general  constitutional  histories  are  derived. 

L.  O.  PIKE. — Constitutional  History  of  the  House  of  Lords 
from  original  sources. 

Perhaps  the  best  book  on  this  particular  subject. 

W.  BAGEHOT. — The  English  Constitution. 

This  little  book,  which  has  become  a  classic,  first  appeared  in 
the  form  of  articles  in  the  Fortnightly  Review,  was  then  pub- 
lished in  1867,  and  describes  the  English  Constitution  as  it 
stood  in  the  years  1865  and  1866.  To  the  second  edition,  pub- 
lished in  1872,  was  prefixed  an  introduction  describing  the 
changes  which  had  taken  place  since  the  passing  of  the  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  Act  of  1867.  The  book  contains  the 
best  description  extant  of  Parliament  in  the  Palmerstonian  pe- 
riod. It  criticizes  the  theory  of  the  constitution  as  expounded 
by  Blackstone  and  De  Lolme,  and  shows  that  this  did  not 
correspond  with  actual  facts.  It  explains  the  actual  working 
of  what  has  since  been  known  as  the  cabinet  system  of  govern- 
ment, a  term  to  which  Bagehot  first  gave  currency. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  251 

A.  V.  DICEY. — The  Law  of  the  Constitution.    7th  ed.  1908. 

A  well-known  work,  which  has  materially  influenced  political 
thought,  particularly  by  the  distinction  drawn  between  the  law 
and  the  conventions  of  the  constitution. 

SIB  W.  ANSON. — The  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution. 

Vol.    i.  Parliament,    4th    ed.    1909.     Vol.    ii.    (a    double 

volume),  The  Crown,  3rd  ed.,  1907,  1908. 
The  standard  book  on  the  subject,  gives  a  clear,  orderly  and 
full  description  of  the  different  branches  of  the  government  and 
the  way  in  which  they  work,  with  brief  sketches  of  their 
historical  development. 

E.    BOUTMT. — The    English    Constitution.    Translated    by 

Isabel  M.  Eaden.     1891. 

A  short  account,  by  a  distinguished  Frenchman,  of  the  social 
and  economic  conditions  which  brought  about  changes  in  the 
constitution  and  functions  of  Parliament.  Contains  suggestive 
comparisons  and  contrasts  with  France. 

G.  LOWES  DICKINSON. — The  Development  of  Parliament  dur- 
ing the  nineteenth  century.     1895. 

A  suggestive  little  book,  describing  the  process  of  the 
democratization  of  Parliament. 

LORD  COURTNEY  OF  PENWITH. — The  Working  Constitution  of 

the  United  Kingdom. 

The  work  of  a  man  with  ripe  and  varied  experience  in  Par-' 
liament  and  public  affairs. 

SIDNEY  Low. — The  Governance  of  England.     1904. 

Describes  the  system  of  government  as  it  worked  at  the 
beginning  of  the  present  century,  when  Mr.  Balfour  was  Prime 
Minister. 

A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL. — The  Government  of  England.    1908. 
An  admirable  book.     The  author,  who  is  an  American,  com- 
bines the  outside  point  of  view  with  an  intimate  knowledge  of 
English  persons  and  English  ways. 


252  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BOOKS  MORE  SPECIALLY  RELATING  TO 
PARLIAMENT. 

SIB  T.  ERSKINE  MAY. — Parliamentary  practice,  llth  edJ 
1906. 

The  most  authoritative  book  on  the  subject.  It  is  intended 
for  practical  use,  and  is  sometimes  difficult  reading  for  a  student 
who  is  not  familiar  with  parliamentary  ways  and  expressions. 

Manual  of  procedure  in  the  public  business  of  the  house  of 
commons,  prepared  by  the  clerk  of  the  house.  2nd  ed.,  1908, 
with  addenda  and  corrigenda  July  1910. 

This  states  briefly  the  leading  rules  of  parliamentary  prac- 
tice, giving  references  to  "  May." 

ALPHEUS  TODD. — Parliamentary  Government  in  England.  2nd 
edition,  by  his  son.  1887-9. 

A  useful  book,  but  out  of  print  and  difficult  to  obtain.  A 
new  edition,  abridged  and  revised  by  the  late  Sir  Spencer 
Walpole,  was  published  in  1892,  and  will  be  found  of  great 
value. 

BIB  COUBTENAT  ILBEBT. — Legislative  Methods 'and  Forms. 
1901. 

I  mention  this  book  of  mine  because  I  have  incorporated 
some  passages  from  it  in  the  present  book. 

E.  POBBITT. — The  Unreformed  House  of  Commons.  Vol.  i.J 
England  and  Wales.  Vol.  ii.,  Scotland  and  Ireland.  1903. 

The  best  description  of  parliamentary  representation  before 
1832.  I  have  drawn  very  freely  from  it  in  these  pages. 

JOSEF  REDLICB. — The  Procedure  of  the  House  of  CommonsJ 
translated  from  the  German  by  A.  E.  Steinthal,  with  an 
introduction  and  a  supplementary  chapter  by  Sir  Courtenay 
iibert.  Three  vols.  1908. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  253 

Professor  Redlich's  book  is  the  only  historical  account  of 
English  parliamentary  procedure,  and  is  indispensable  to  the 
Btudent  of  that  subject.  A  bibliography  is  to  be  found  in  vol. 
ii.,  pp.  10-20. 

Of  the  Palace  of  Westminster,  where  Parliament  sits,  there  is 
no  good  history.  Brayley  and  Britton,  History  of  the  Ancient 
Palace  and  late  Houses  of  Parliament  at  Westminster,  supplies 
useful  information  about  the  buildings  as  they  stood  before  the 
fire  of  1834.  Some  interesting  plates  of  old  buildings  are  re- 
produced in  Parliament,  Past  and  Present,  a  popular  account 
by  A.  Wright  and  P.  Smith. 


COLONIAL   AND    FOREIGN   PARLIAMENTS. 

A.  TODD. — Parliamentary  Government  in  the  British  Colonies. 

1880. 
Very  useful  for  the  period  which  it  covers. 

A.  B.  KEITH. — Responsible  Government  in  the  Dominions. 

1909. 
A  very  good  study  of  present  conditions. 

A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL. — Government  and  Parties  in  Con- 
tinental   Europe,    1896.     This    is,    for    English    readers, 
probably  the  best  introduction  to  the  atudy  of  the  work- 
ing  of   parliamentary   government   on   the   continent   of 
,  Europe. 

C.  SEIGNOBOS. — A  Political  History  of  Contemporary  Europe 
since  1814,  translated  from  the  French.  1904.  Shows  how 
European  constitutions  have  grown  up  and  been  developed. 

JAMES  BRTCE. — The  American  Commonwealth.  New  edition, 
1911.  This  is,  of  course,  the  classical  work  on  the  United 
States.  Interesting  studies  of  the  constitutions  of  the 
United  States,  of  South  Africa,  and  of  Australia,  are  to  be 
found  in  vol.  i.  of  Mr.  Bryce's  Studies  in  History  and 
Jurisprudence.  1901. 


254  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

WOODROW  WILSON. — Congressional  Government.  Has  passed 
through  many  editions,  and  is  a  very  illuminating  study. 

H.  W.  V.  TEMPERLET. — Senates  and  Upper  Chambers,  1910. 
Contains  useful  information  about  the  constitution  and 
.powers  of  the  legislatures  in  different  countries. 


INDEX 


ADMINWTKATION,  111-119 

Bill,  Stages  of  a,  69-76, 79-89,  203 
Budget,  105-106 

Cabinet,  the,  29,  78,   111,   118, 

145-151 

Ceremonials,  19,  75,  126 
Closure,  134-136 
Colonial  Parliaments,  239-245 
Committees,   28,   29,   71-74,   83, 

99-101,  104,  109-111,  114-115, 

143,  174 

Consolidated  Fund,  93,  103 
Convocation,  14,  20 
Council,  the  Great,  9,  11,  12,  15, 

16, 18, 196 

Duration  of  Parliaments,  30 

Electoral  reforms,  proposed,  62- 
63 

Finance,  19-21,  90-111,  204-209 
Franchise,    the,    33-50,    54-60, 

64 
French  Legislature,  7,  8, 110,  231, 

234-239 


Galleries,  the,  193 

Germany,  Parliament  in,  111,  233 


Hansard,  190 

Judicial  function  of  Lords,  200— 
202 

Lords  and  Commons,   Relations 
of,  15, 32, 57, 74, 199-219 

Members,  Duties  of,  157-176 
"One  vote,  one  value,  "61 

Parliament:  Origin,  7-11;  med- 
iaeval, 8-19;  "Model"  of  1295, 
13-17, 196;  Plantagenet,  15, 19, 
21-25;  Tudor,  20,  25-26,  122, 
198;  Stuart,  27,  29,  120;  18th 
century,  29-30,  198;  Reform, 
31, 47-52, 123;  Palmerston,  53; 
To-day,  123-129 

Parliament  Bill   (1911),  218-219 

Parliamentary    papers,    114-115, 
182 

Patronage,  44 

Petitions,  17-18,  22-23 

Press   and    Parliament,    185-193 

Private  Bills,  85-89 

Private  Member,  the,  52-53,  76- 
77,  134 

Procedure,  129-138 


£55 


256 


INDEX 


Proportional  Representation,  62-     Sinking  Funds,  95-97 


63 

Qualification  of  M.  ^P.'e,   63-64, 

65-67 
Questions,  112-113 

Records,  Parliamentary,  177-184 
Redistribution  of  Seats,  48,  57-59, 

61 

Reform  Bill  (1832),  30,  47-52 
"  Rotten  boroughs,"  36-46 


Speaker,  The,  132,  139-142 
Statute  law,  23,  51-52,  68-69 

Taxation  (see  Finance) 

United  States  Congress,  220-231 

Westminster  Hall,  24,  31 
Whips,  152-155 
Witenagemot,  9 
Woman  Suffrage,  60 


THE  HOME  UNIVERSITY 

LIBRARY  of  Modern  Knowledge 

Is  made  up  of  absolutely  new  books  by  leading  authorities 

The  editors  are  Professors  Gilbert  Murray,  H.  A.  L. 

Fisher,  W.  T.  Brewster  and  J.  Arthur  Thomson. 

Cloth  bound,  good  paper,  clear  type,  256  pages  per 
volume,  bibliographies,  indices,  also  maps  or  illustra- 
tions, where  needed.    Each  complete  f\f\          r 
and  sold  separately.     Per  volume,  */"  CCDtS. 


LITERATURE  AND  ART. 

(Order 
Number] 

73.  EURIPIDES  AND  HIS  AGE.  By  Gilbert  Murray,  Regius  Pro. 
fessor  of  Greek,  Oxford. 

191.  DANTE.  By  Jefferson  B.  Fletcher.  Columbia  University.  An  inter- 
pretation  of  Dante  and  his  teaching  from  his  writings. 

2.    SHAKESPEARE.    By  John  Masefield.    "One  of  the  very  few  in. 

dispensable      adjuncts      to     a     Shakespearean      Library." — Boston 
Transcript. 

81.  CHAUCER  AND  HIS  TIMES.  By  Grace  E.  Hadow,  Lecturer  Lady 
Margaret  Hall,  Oxford;  Late  Reader,  Bryn  Mawr. 

97.     MILTON.    By  John  Bailey. 

59.  DR.  JOHNSON  AND  HIS  CIRCLE.  By  John  Bailey.  Johnson's  life, 
character,  works,  and  friendships  are  surveyed;  and  there  is  a  notable 
vindication  of  the  "Genius  of  Boswell." 

83.  WILLIAM  MORRIS:  HIS  WORK  AND  INFLUENCE.  By  A.  Clut- 
toa  Brock,  author  of  "Shelley:  The  Man  and  the  Poet."  William  Morris 
believed  that  the  artist  should  toil  for  love  of  his  work  rather  than  the 
gain  of  his  employer,  and  so  he  turned  from  making  works  of  art  to 
remaking  society. 

75.    SHELLEY,  GODWIN  AND  THEIR  CIRCLE.    By  H.  N.  BraHsford. 

The  influence  of  the  French  Revolution  on  England. 


70.  ANCIENT  ART  AND  RITUAL.  By  Jane  E.  Harrison,  LL.  D.,  D. 
Litt.  "One  of  the  100  most  important  books  of  1913."—  New  Vbrlfc 
Times  Recicw. 

45.  MEDIEVAL  ENGLISH  LITERATURE.  By  W.  P.  Ker,  Professor 
of  English  Literature,  University  College,  London.  "One  of  the 
soundest  scholars.  His  style  is  effective,  simple,  yet  never  dry." — 
The  Athenaeum. 

87.  THE  RENAISSANCE.  By  Edith  Sichel,  author  of  "Catherine  de 
Medici,"  "Men  and  Women  of  the  French  Renaissance." 

89.    ELIZABETHAN   LITERATURE.     By   J.   M.   Robertson,   M.   P., 

author  of  "Montaigne  and  Shakespeare,"  "Modern  Humanists." 

27.  MODERN  ENGLISH  LITERATURE.  By  G.  H.  Mair.  From  Wyatt 
and  Surrey  to  Synge  and  Yeats.  "One  of  the  best  of  this  great  series." 
— Chicago  Evening  Post. 

61.  THE  VICTORIAN  AGE  IN  LITERATURE.    By  G.  K.  Chesterton. 

40.  THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE.  By  L.  P.  Smith.  A  concise  history 
of  its  origin  and  development. 

G6.  WRITING  ENGLISH  PROSE.  By  William  T.  Brewster,  Professor 
of  English,  Columbia  University.  "Should  be  put  into  the  hands 
of  every  man  who  is  beginning  to  write  and  of  every  teacher  of  English 
who  has  brains  enough  to  understand  sense." — New  Vbr£  Sun. 

58.  THE  NEWSPAPER.  By  G.  Binney  Dibblee.  The  first  full  account 
from  the  inside  of  newspaper  organization  as  it  exists  to-day. 

48.  GREAT  WRITERS  OF  AMERICA.  By  W.  P.  Trent  and  John 
Erskine,  Columbia  University. 

93.    AN  OUTLINE  OF  RUSSIAN  LITERATURE.    By  Maurice  Baring, 

author  of  "The  Russian  People,"  etc.  Tolstoi,  Tourgenieff,  Dos- 
toieffsky,  Pushkin  (the  father  of  Russian  Literature,)  Saltykov  (the 
satirist,)  Leskov,  and  many  other  authors. 

31.    LANDMARKS  IN  FRENCH  LITERATURE,  By  G.  L.  Strachey, 

Scholar  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  "It  is  difficult  to  imagine 
how  a  better  account  of  French  Literature  could  be  given  in  250  pages." 
— London  Times. 

64.    THE  LITERATURE  OF  GERMANY.    By  J.  G.  Robertson. 

62.  PAINTERS  AND  PAINTING.    By  Sir  Frederick  Wedmore.    With 
1 6  half-tone  illustrations. 

38.  ARCHITECTURE.  By  Prof.  W.  R.  Lethaby.  An  introduction  to 
the  history  and  theory  of  the  art  of  building. 


NATURAL  SCIENCE. 

68.  DISEASE  AND  ITS  CAUSES.  By  W.  T.  Councilman,  M.  D., 
LL.  D.,  Professor  of  Pathology,  Harvard  University. 

85.  SEX.  By  J.  Arthur  Thompson  and  Patrick  Geddes,  joint  authors 
of  'The  Evolution  of  Sex." 

71.  PLANT  LIFE.  By  J.  B.  Farmer,  D.  Sc.,  F.  R.  S.,  Professor  of  Bot- 
tany  in  the  Imperial  College  of  Science,  London.  This  very  fully 
illustrated  volume  contains  an  account  of  the  salient  features  of  plant 
form  and  function. 

63.  THE  ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  LIFE.  By  Benjamin  M.  Moore, 
Professor  of  Bio-Chemistry,  Liverpool. 

90.  CHEMISTRY.  By  Raphael  Meldola,  F.  R.  S.,  Professor  of  Chem- 
istry, Finsbury  Technical  College.  Presents  the  way  in  which  the 
science  has  developed  and  the  stage  it  has  reached. 

53.  ELECTRICITY.    By    Gisbert    Kapp,    Professor    of    Electrical    En- 
gineering, University  of  Birmingham. 

54.  THE  MAKING  OF  THE  EARTH.    By  J.  W.  Gregory,  Professor  of 
Geology,   Glasgow   University.     38   maps  and   figures.     Describes 
the  origin  of  the  earth,  the  formation  and  changes  of  its  surface  and 
structure,  its  geological  history,  the  first  appearance  of  life,  and  its 
influence  upon  the  globe. 

56.  MAN:  A  HISTORY  OF  THE  HUMAN  BODY.  By  A.  Keith,  M.  D., 
Hunterian  Professor,  Royal  College  of  Surgeons,  London.  Shows 
how  the  human  body  developed. 

74.  NERVES.  By  David  Fraser  Harris,  M.  D.,  Professor  of  Physi- 
ology, Dalhousie  University,  Halifax.  Explains  in  non-technical 
language  the  place  and  powers  of  the  nervous  system. 

21.  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  SCIENCE.  By  Prof.  J.  Arthur  Thomson, 
Science  Editor  of  the  Home  University  Library.  For  those  unac- 
quainted with  the  scientific  volumes  in  the  s«ries,  this  should  prove 
an  excellent  introduction. 

14.  EVOLUTION.  By  Prof.  J.  Arthur  Thomson  and  Prof.  Patrick 
Geddes.  Explains  to  the  layman  what  the  title  means  to  the  scien- 
tific world. 

23.  ASTRONOMY.    By  A.  R.  Hinks,  Chief  Assistant  at  the  Cambridge 
Observatory.    "Decidedly  original  in  substance,  and  the  most  readable 
and  informative  little  book  on  modern  astronomy  we  have  seen  for  a 
long    time." — Nature. 

24.  PSYCHICAL  RESEARCH.    By  Prof.  W.  F.  Barrett,  formerly  Presi- 
dent of  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research. 

9.    THE  EVOLUTION  OF  PLANTS.    By  Dr.  D.  H.  Scott,  President 
of  the  Linnean  Society  of  London.    The  story  of  the  development 
5X      of  flowering  plants,  from  the  earliest  zoological  times,  unlocked  from 
technical  language. 


43.  MATTER  AND  ENERGY.    By  F.  Soddy,  Lecturer  in   Physical 
Chemistry  and  Radioactivity,  University  of  Glasgow.    "Brilliant. 
Can  hardly  be  surpassed.    Sure  to  attract  attention." — New  York 
Sun. 

41.  PSYCHOLOGY,  THE  STUDY  OF  BEHAVIOUR.    By  William  Me- 
Dougall,  of  Oxford.    A  well  digested  summary  of  the  essentials  of  the 
science  put  in  excellent  literary  form  by  a  leading  authority. 

42.  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PHYSIOLOGY.    By  Pro!.  J.  G.  McKendrick, 

A  compact  statement  by  the  Emeritus  Professor  at  Glasgow,  for 
uninstructed  readers. 

37.  ANTHROPOLOGY.  By  R.  R.  Marett,  Reader  in  Social  Anthro- 
pology, Oxford.  Seeks  to  plot  out  and  sum  up  the  general  series  of 
changes,  bodily  and  mental,  undergone  by  man  in  the  course  of 
history.  "Excellent.  So  enthusiastic,  so  clear  and  witty,  and  so 
well  adapted  to  the  general  reader." — American  Library  Association 
Booklist. 

17.  CRIME  AND  INSANITY.  By  Dr.  C.  Mercier,  author  of  "Crime 
and  Criminals,"  eta. 

12.    THE  ANIMAL  WORLD.    By  Prof .  F.  W.  Gamble. 

15.    INTRODUCTION  TO  MATHEMATICS.     By  A.  N.  Whitehead, 

author  of  "Universal  Algebra." 

PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGION. 

69.  A  HISTORY  OF  FREEDOM  OF  THOUGHT.  By  John  B.  Bury, 
M.  A.,  LL.  D.,  Regius  Professor  of  Modern  History  in  Cambridge 
University.  Summarizes  the  history  of  the  long  struggle  between 
authority  and  reason  and  of  the  emergence  of  the  principle  that  co- 
ercion of  opinion  is  a  mistake. 

96.    A  HISTORY  OF  PHILOSOPHY.    By  Clement  C.  J.  Webb,  Oxford. 

35.  THE  PROBLEMS  OF  PHILOSOPHY.  By  Bertrand  Russell,  Lee- 
turer  and  Late  Fellow,  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

60.  COMPARATIVE  RELIGION.  By  Prof.  J.  Estlin  Carpenter.  "One 
of  the  few  authorities  on  this  subject  compares  all  the  religions  to 
see  what  they  have  to  offer  on  the  great  themes  of  religion." — Chris- 
tian Work  and  Evangelist. 

44.  BUDDHISM.    By  Mrs.  Rhys  Davids,  Lecturer  on  Indian  Philoso- 
phy, Manchester. 

46.    ENGLISH  SECTS:  A  HISTORY  OF  NONCONFORMITY.    ByW.B. 

Seloie.    Principal  of  Manchester  College,  Oxford. 


55.  MISSIONS:  THEIR  RISE  AND  DEVELOPMENT.  By  Mrs.  Man- 
dell  Creighton,  author  of  "History  of  England."  The  author  seeks  to 
prove  that  missions  have  done  more  to  civilize  the  world  than  any 
other  human  agency. 

52.  ETHICS.  By  G.  E.  Moore,  Lecturer  in  Moral  Science,  Cambridge. 
Discusses  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong,  and  the  whys  and  where* 
fores. 

65.  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  George  F. 
Moore.  Professor  of  the  History  of  Religion,  Harvard  University  "A 
popular  work  of  the  highest  order.  Will  be  profitable  to  anybody 
who  cares  enough  about  Bible  study  to  read  a  serious  book  on  the 
subject." — American  Journal  of  Theology. 

88.  RELIGIOUS  DEVELOPMENT  BETWEEN  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTA- 
MENTS.  By  R.  H.  Charles,  Canon  of  Westminster.  Shows  how 
religious  and  ethical  thought  between  180  B.  C.  and  100  A.  D.  grew 
naturally  into  that  of  the  New  Testament. 

50.    THE  MAKING  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    By  B.  W.  Bacon, 

Professor  of  New  Testament  Criticism,  Yale.  An  authoritative 
summary  of  the  results  of  modern  critical  research  with  regard  to 
the  origins  of  the  New  Testament. 

SOCIAL  SCIENCE. 

91.  THE  NEGRO.  By  W.  E.  Burghardt  DuBois,  author  of  "Souls  of 
Black  Folks,"  etc.  A  history  of  the  black  man  in  Africa,  America  or 
wherever  else  his  presence  has  been  or  is  important. 

77.  CO-PARTNERSHIP  AND  PROFIT  SHARING.  By  Aneurin  Wil- 
Hams,  Chairman,  Executive  Committee,  International  Co-opera- 
tive Alliance,  etc.  Explains  the  various  types  of  co-partnership  and 
profit-sharing,  and  gives  details  of  the  arrangements  now  in  force  in 
many  of  the  great  industries. 

99.  POLITICAL  THOUGHT:  THE  UTILITARIANS.  FROM  BENT- 
HAM  TO  J.  S.  MILL.  By  William  L.  P.  Davidson. 

98.  POLITICAL  THOUGHT:  FROM  HERBERT  SPENCER  TO  THE 
PRESENT  DAY.  By  Ernest  Barker,  M.  A. 

79.  UNEMPLOYMENT.  By  A.  C.  Pigou,  M.  A.,  Professor  of  Political 
Economy  at  Cambridge.  The  meaning,  measurement,  distribution, 
and  effects  of  unemployment,  its  relation  to  wages,  trade  fluctuations, 
and  disputes,  and  some  proposals  of  remedy  or  relief. 


80.    COMMON-SENSE  IN  LAW.    By  Prof.  Paul  VinogradofT,  D.  C.  L., 

LL.  D.  Social  and  Legal  Rules— Legal  Rights  and  Duties— Fact* 
and  Acts  in  Law — Legislation — Custom — Judicial  Precedents — Equity 
— The  Law  of  Nature. 

49.    ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY.    By  S.  J.  Chapman, 

Professor  of  Political  Economy  and  Dean  of  Faculty  of  Commerce 
and  Administration,  University  of  Manchester. 

11.  THE  SCIENCE  OF  WEALTH.  By  J.  A.  Hobson,  author  of  "Prob- 
lems of  Poverty."  A  study  of  the  structure  and  working  of  the  modern 
business  world. 

1.    PARLIAMENT.    ITS  HISTORY,  CONSTITUTION,  AND  PRAC- 
TICE.   By  Sir  Courtenay  P.  Ilbert,  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

16.  LIBERALISM.  By  Prof.  L.  T.  Hobhouse,  author  of  "Democracy  and 
Reaction."  A  masterly  philosophical  and  historical  review  of  the  subject. 

5.  THE  STOCK  EXCHANGE.    By  F.  W.  Hirst,  Editor  of  the  London 
Economist.    Reveals  to  the  non-financial  mind  the  facts  about  invest- 
ment, speculation,  and  the  other  terms  which  the  title  suggests. 

10.    THE  SOCIALIST  MOVEMENT.    By  J.  Ramsay  Macdonald,  Chair- 

man  of  the  British  Labor  Party. 

28.  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  INDUSTRY.    By  D.  H.  MacGregor,  Professor 
of  Political  Economy,  University  of  Leeds.    An  outline  of  the  recent 
changes  that  have  given  us  the  present  conditions  of  the  working  classes 
and  the  principles  involved. 

29.  ELEMENTS  OF  ENGLISH  LAW.    By  W.  M.  Geldart,  Vinerian 
Professor  of  English  Law,  Oxford.    A  simple  statement  of  the  basic 
principles  of   the  English  legal  system  on  which  that  of  the  United 
States  is  based. 

32.  THE  SCHOOL:  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  EDU- 
CATION. By  J.  J.  Findlay,  Professor  of  Education,  Manchester. 
Presents  the  history,  the  psychological  basis,  and  the  theory  of  the 
school  with  a  rare  power  of  summary  and  suggestion. 

6.  IRISH  NATIONALITY.    By  Mrs.  J.  R.  Green.    A  brilliant  account 
of  the  genius  and  mission  of  the  Irish  people.    "An  entrancing  work, 
tnd  I  would  advise  every  one  with  a  drop  of  Irish  blood  in  his  veins 
or  a  vein  of  Irish  sympathy  in  his  heart  to  read  it." — New  York  Times 
Review. 


GENERAL  HISTORY  AND  GEOGRAPHY. 

102.  SERBIA.  By  L.  F.  Waring,  with  preface  by  J.  M.  Jo?anovitch, 
Serbian  Minister  to  Great  Britain.  The  main  outlines  of  Serbian 
history,  with  special  emphasis  on  the  immediate  causes  of  the  war, 
and  the  question  which  will  be  of  greatest  importance  in  the  after- 
the-war  settlement. 

33.  THE  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND.    By  A.  F.  Pollard,  Professor  of 
English  History,  University  of  London. 

95.  BELGIUM.  By  R.  C.  K.  Ensor,  Sometime  Scholar  of  Balliol  College . 
The  geographical,  linguistic,  historical,  artistic  and  literary  associa- 
tions. 

100.  POLAND.  By  J.  Alison  Phillips,  University  of  Dublin.  The  history 
of  Poland  with  special  emphasis  upon  the  Polish  qustion  of  the  pre- 
sent day. 

34.  CANADA.    By  A.  G.  Bradley. 

72.    GERMANY  OF  TO-DAY.    By  Charles  Tower. 

78.  LATIN  AMERICA.  By  William  R.  Shepherd,  Professor  of  His. 
tory,  Columbia.  With  maps.  The  historical,  artistic,  and  commercial 
development  of  the  Central  South  American  republics. 

18.  THE  OPENING  UP  OF  AFRICA.    By  Sir  H.  H.  Johnston. 

19.  THE  CIVILIZATION  OF  CHINA.    By  H.  A.  Gfles,  Professor  of 
Chinese,  Cambridge. 

36.    PEOPLES  AND  PROBLEMS  OF  INDIA.    By  Sir  T.  W.  Holderness, 

"The  best  small  treatise  dealing  with  the  range  of  subjects  fairly  in- 
dicated by  the  title."—  The  Dial. 

26.  THE  DAWN  OF  HISTORY.  By  J.  L.  Myers,  Professor  of  Ancient 
History,  Oxford. 

92.  THE  ANCIENT  EAST.  By  D.  G.  Hogarth,  M.  A.,  F.  B.  A.,  F.  S.  A., 
Connects  with  Prof.  Myers's  "Dawn  of  History"  (No.  26)  at  about 
1000  B.  C.  and  reviews  the  history  of  Assyria,  Babylon,  Cilicia,  Persia 
and  Macedon. 

30.    ROME.    By  W.  Warde  Fowler,  author  of  "Social  Life  at  Rome,"  etc. 

13.    MEDIEVAL  EUROPE.    By  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  Fellow  at  Balliol  Col- 
lege, Oxford,  author  of  "Charlemagne,"  etc. 
3.    THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION.    By  Hilaire  Belloc. 

57.  NAPOLEON,  By  H.  A.  L.  Fisher,  Vice-Chancellor  of  Sheffield  Uni- 
versity. Author  of  "The  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe." 

20.  HISTORY  OF  OUR  TIME.  (1885-1911).    By  C.  P.  Gooch. 

22.  THE  PAPACY  AND  MODERN  TIMES.  By  Rev.  William  Barry, 
D.  D.,  author  of  "The  Papal  Monarchy,"  etc.  The  story  of  the  rise  and 
fall  of  the  Temporal  Power. 


4.    A  SHORT  HISTORY  OF  WAR  AND  PEACE.    By  G.  H.  Perns, 

author  of  "Russia  in  Revolution,"  etc. 

94.  THE  NAVY  AND  SEA  POWER.  By  David  Hannay,  author  of  "Short 
History  of  the  Royal  Navy,"  etc.  A  brief  history  of  the  navies,  sea 
Power,  and  ship  growth  of  all  nations,  including  the  rise  and  decline 
of  America  on  the  sea,  and  explaining  the  present  British  supremacy. 
8.  POLAR  EXPLORATION.  By  Dr.  W.  S.  Bruce,  Leader  of  the 
"Scotia"  expedition.  Emphasizes  the  results  of  the  expeditions. 

51.  MASTER  MARINERS.  By  John  R.  Spears,  author  of  "The  His- 
tory  of  Our  Navy,"  etc.  A  history  of  sea  craft  adventure  from  the 
earliest  times. 

86.    EXPLORATION  OF  THE  ALPS.    By  Arnold  Lunn,  M.  A. 
7.    MODERN  GEOGRAPHY.    By  Dr.  Marion  Newbigin.    Shows  the  re- 
lation of  physical  features  to  living  things  and  to  some  of  the  chief  in- 
stitutions of  civilization. 

76.  THE  OCEAN.  A  GENERAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  SCIENCE  OF 
THE  SEA.  By  Sir  John  Murray,jK.  C.  B.,  Naturalist  H.  M.  S.  "Chal- 
lenger," 1872-1876,  joint  author  of  "The  Depths  of  the  Ocean,"  etc. 

84.  THE  GROWTH  OF  EUROPE.  By  Granville  Cole,  Professor  of 
Geology,  Royal  College  of  Science,  Ireland.  A  study  of  the  geology 
and  physical  geography  in  connection  with  the  political  geography. 

AMERICAN  HISTORY. 


47.  THE  COLONIAL  PERIOD  (1607-1766).  By  Charles  McLean  An- 
drews,  Professor  of  American  History,  Yale. 

82.  THE  WARS  BETWEEN  ENGLAND  AND  AMERICA  (1763-1815). 
By  Theodore  C.  Smith,  Professor  of  American  History,  Williams 
College.  A  history  of  the  period,  with  especial  emphasis  on  The  Re- 
volution and  The  War  of  1812. 

67.  FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN  (1815-1860).  By  William  Mac- 
Donald.  Professor  of  History,  Brown  University.  The  author  makes 
the  history  of  this  period  circulate  about  constitutional  ideas  and  slavery 
sentiment. 

25.  THE  CIVIL  WAR  (1854-1865).  By  Frederick  L.  Paxson,  Professor 
of  American  History,  University  of  Wisconsin. 

69.  RECONSTRUCTION  AND  UNION  (1865-1912).  By  Paul  Leland 
Haworth.  A  History  of  the  United  States  in  our  own  times. 

OTHER  VOLUMES  IN  PREPARATION 

HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 

19  West  44th  Street  New  York 


UCLA-College  Library 

JN  51 1127 


L  005  707  792  7 


COLLEGE 
LIB. 

JN 

511 
12? 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


- .  111  minium' ii  I'll  i  ii mi  i 

A     001  039  023     5 


